Thank you for your well thought out rebuttal. If you'd actually like to add something to this thread we're all waiting. I mean, sure, you're making us all laugh, but perhaps you'd like to add something of substance. Believe me, we won't hold our breath
<< <i>Robb clearly is quarreling with that idea. "...executing someone is another." There was clearly no "execution" in this case. I'm not saying the dealer was right or wrong, but he sure as hell didn't "execute" anyone. >>
I'd agree that "execution" is rather strong. At most, if it's ruled that the use of deadly force wasn't justified, we'd probably be looking at voluntary manslaughter, which legally isn't even murder.
But he wasn't saying no attempt to commit a crime was taking place.
Here is the release from Sacramento Sheriff's, not much more info:
5/18/2009 Store Owner Shoots Burglary Suspect
On May 18, 2009, at 4:16 a.m., the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department’s Communications Center received a 911 call from a subject who said two suspects wearing black ski masks were attempting to break into his business in the 4900 block of Marconi Avenue. The call taker heard multiple gunshots while still on the line with the business owner. The business owner told the call taker one of the suspects was lying in the parking lot and the second subject was trying to help him. Deputies arrived and found an unidentified Hispanic male lying on the ground and suffering from a gunshot wound to his upper body. Paramedics pronounced the suspect dead at the scene. The second suspect had fled from the scene.
At 5:18 a.m., deputies searching the area detained a 22-year-old Hispanic male at the corner of Marconi Avenue and Eastern Avenue. He will be interviewed by detectives to determine what, if any, involvement he had in the incident.
The business owner, a 65-year-old male, has not been arrested. Sheriff’s Homicide Bureau detectives will conduct a thorough investigation and forward their report to the District Attorney’s office. The District Attorney’s office will determine what, if any, charges will be filed in this case. The suspect who was killed will be identified by the Sacramento County Coroner’s office and his name will be released after his next of kin are notified.
its just a real shame that someone can prowl around your home or business...your livelyhood with obvious intensions but you have to consult with a lawyer before you can take any action,.Or you have to be savagely attacked. But even then the monday morning quarterbacks will be judging your actions safe and secure in their homes.
<< <i>its just a real shame that someone can prowl around your home or business...your livelyhood with obvious intensions but you have to consult with a lawyer before you can take any action,.Or you have to be savagely attacked. But even then the monday morning quarterbacks will be judging your actions safe and secure in their homes. >>
............you're right. you can't shoot 'em, shucks, you're not even allowed to WATER-BOARD 'EM!
"government is not reason, it is not eloquence-it is a force! like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." George Washington
Do we know if the burglars were armed?.....No. Do we know if they gained entry to the shop? .....No. Until we know these facts, we are only speculating. I hope it turns out OK for the dealer, I don't feel a bit bad for the criminals.
<< <i>The living suspect could be charged with homicide also, I believe--yes--no?---------------------------------BigE >>
No, if they had killed the owner, then yes. >>
That is incorrect. He can be charged with the death of his cohort (if the owner isn't) >>
Please site the law here, and let's assume both suspects were unarmed. >>
You can do your own research but most states have laws where if someone (anyone, including your accomplices) is hurt while you are committing a crime, you are responsible. In some states the one that got away could be charged and convicted of first degree murder even if it is his accomplice that got "body bagged".
<< <i>The living suspect could be charged with homicide also, I believe--yes--no?---------------------------------BigE >>
No.
I believe you are referring to a "Felony Murder" charge which is leveled against perpetrators when the victim of a crime is murdered during the commission of a crime. All that "participated" in the crime are charged with Felony Murder in that their participation "enabled" the murder to occur. Whether they committed the murder or not.
Refer to the Lisl Auman case in Denver Colorado where she was charged with Felony Murder because the fellow she was with killed a police officer.
OAK RIDGE — The man accused of fleeing from a January home invasion that turned deadly now faces a felony murder charge in the death of his partner, police said today.
Oak Ridge police arrested Bradford L. Pate, 24, late Friday on a grand jury indictment charging him with felony murder, aggravated burglary and attempted aggravated robbery, Lt. Pamela Breeden said.
Police say Pate and Matthew W. Bennett, 42, kicked open the front door of a home on Wainwright Road the night of Jan. 14 wearing masks and carrying guns. Police say they were threatening the resident, Lynette Kelly, when her 19-year-old son, Deshawn Wright, hit Bennett in the head with a space heater.
Bennett died, and police said Pate ran. The mother and son weren’t hurt.
Police said Tennessee’s definition of felony murder qualifies Pate for the murder charge. State law defines felony murder as a killing committed during the course of another crime.
First of all, I am VERY SUPRISED the shop owner was not arrested. I say this because in my little burb in SoCal the local police have told me in no uncertain terms, IF I shoot someone, I will be ARRESTED. That is why I chose to belong to the NRA because they will bail out a CCW holder in a case like this. The fact that the police did not arrest him is cause to let out a sigh.
Second of all, I certainly HOPE that the perp was inside the store otherwise this is going to get very sticky for the shop owner.
Third, some say.....it's always a good idea to keep a sat. night sp. around just in case
<< <i>............and let's assume both suspects were unarmed. >>
Can we also assume that these two were recent SUMMA CUM LAUDE college grads lining up simply to apply for a job? >>
It's not a leap in logic to think that the thieves were unarmed since they chose to break in at 4 in the morning when presumably the place would be empty.
Thinking back on the "What was the shop owner doing there at 4a.m.?" My initial thought was that it doesn't matter as it is his business after all. If he was conducting business until the wee hours of the morning from the night before or getting an early jump on Monday is not any of our business. But what may be an issue is the scenario that someone suggested earlier in that the owner was staying the night there due to the robbery that took place earlier. I know that here in KC this is a no-no. You can not treat your business as a residence unless you work at of your home which was not the case here. IF that's what he was doing and IF that 's a no-no in Sacramento then there may be a legal issue. IF this is the case then at what point as a store owner do you cut your business from your personal life and well-being? You bar the place up, have an alarm, presumably keep the real high end stuff off-site and are insured. I would think that you would have to leave it at that and that camping out at your store would be a bit much. You've already invested in protecting your goods and being compensated for them if something were to happen so why put your life on the line for the sake of protecting little metal discs or whatever your goods are?
You Suck! Awarded 6/2008- 1901-O Micro O Morgan, 8/2008- 1878 VAM-123 Morgan, 9/2022 1888-O VAM-1B3 H8 Morgan | Senior Regional Representative- ANACS Coin Grading. Posted opinions on coins are my own, and are not an official ANACS opinion.
<< <i>............and let's assume both suspects were unarmed. >>
Can we also assume that these two were recent SUMMA CUM LAUDE college grads lining up simply to apply for a job? >>
No, but the only gun mentioned was the one belonging to dealer and the descriptions all call it a burglary, not attempted armed robbery, so this is NOT a leap of faith (as your scenario is).
"It's far easier to fight for principles, than to live up to them." Adlai Stevenson
You'd be suprised at the number of people who have camped out in their business to figure out what happens when they are not around. Nowadays most people secure the site with cameras and microphones and motion detectors and floor sensors and infra red beams and security bars and concertina wire and dogs but maybe this lad didn't do that.
<< <i>The living suspect could be charged with homicide also, I believe--yes--no?---------------------------------BigE >>
No, if they had killed the owner, then yes. >>
That is incorrect. He can be charged with the death of his cohort (if the owner isn't) >>
Please site the law here, and let's assume both suspects were unarmed. >>
You can do your own research but most states have laws where if someone (anyone, including your accomplices) is hurt while you are committing a crime, you are responsible. In some states the one that got away could be charged and convicted of first degree murder even if it is his accomplice that got "body bagged". >>
I believe that's only the case if he or the accomplice was armed, and he knew it.
"It's far easier to fight for principles, than to live up to them." Adlai Stevenson
<< <i>Second if he recently had a breakin and he was their guarding his store by sleeping there, then he made the right decision, because he stopped a breakin. >>
This could just as easily work against him, as it could show he was "lying in wait" to exact revenge. In other words, it may have introduced an element of premeditation.
I'm not saying it *should*, but thinking this through legal realities, I can see this being problematic for him.
Your leap in logic IS unreasonable..... unarmed because they are breaking in at 4:00AM?.... I could just as easily assume that they are gang members using your reasoning.
Lethal force in defense of property is a recipe for being victimized twice. So long as they managed entry, the dealer will be in much better position to assert self defense. Time to lawyer up!
Must admit, I won't lose any sleep over the fate of the robbers.
<< <i>Your leap in logic IS unreasonable..... unarmed because they are breaking in at 4:00AM?.... >>
I would say it makes it more likely that they were unarmed -- burglars, unlike armed robbers in broad daylight, often are. I certainly wouldn't claim that the shop owner should have assumed this, though.
it's only in the movies where the "good guy" tells the "bad guy" freeze, put your hands up slowly, and face the wall, I will frisk you and disarm you if you are carrying a concealed weapon. If you are just here by accident, or need to use a phone or bathroom, or want to shop, carry on.
In the time it takes to alert the "bad guy" that you have a gun they can kill you.
Your leap in logic IS unreasonable..... unarmed because they are breaking in at 4:00AM?.... I could just as easily assume that they are gang members using your reasoning. >>
By breaking in at 4a.m. they are, or at least thought they were, avoiding confrontation. It's not unreasonable to think that they were not armed and that if they had been spotted by a passerby or confronted in any other way that they would have fled as evidenced by one man dying in the parking lot and the other being caught a couple of blocks away.
<<<By breaking in at 4a.m. they are, or at least thought they were, avoiding confrontation. It's not unreasonable to think that they were not armed and that if they had been spotted by a passerby or confronted in any other way that they would have fled as evidenced by one man dying in the parking lot and the other being caught a couple of blocks away. >>>
Speculation, not a fact. Until the facts are brought out that's all it is.
How terrifying (and threatening) it must be, to be locked inside a residence or shop and have crooks breaking in, and not knowing how violent or crazy they might be.
Advanced collector of BREWERIANA. Early beer advertising (beer cans, tap knobs, foam scrapers, trays, tin signs, lithos, paper, etc)....My first love...U.S. COINS!
If ever face criminal charges, I want you on my jury.
Too bad he didn’t kill them both. But then again, one less ‘thug’ in the world is better than nothing!
Dave >>
Keep in mind that these are just dreamed up scenarios to give the knee-jerkers something to think about. If the shop owner was well within his rights then more power to him and I'm glad that this happened at 4a.m. when the likely hood of innocent bystanders being hit was at a minimum. I would imagine that for a lot of men that the fact that they were within their right to kill doesn't make it a whole lot easier to go through the rest of life knowing that they had taken the life of another. This sad story is very real for the three people directly involved and their lives are forever changed. This story and others like it deserve more attention and deeper dialogue than the "only in America!" and "shoot 'em good!" type of responses.
<< <i><<<By breaking in at 4a.m. they are, or at least thought they were, avoiding confrontation. It's not unreasonable to think that they were not armed and that if they had been spotted by a passerby or confronted in any other way that they would have fled as evidenced by one man dying in the parking lot and the other being caught a couple of blocks away. >>>
Speculation, not a fact. Until the facts are brought out that's all it is. >>
Yeah, it's all speculation as I've been saying all along.
<< <i>By breaking in at 4a.m. they are, or at least thought they were, avoiding confrontation. It's not unreasonable to think that they were not armed and that if they had been spotted by a passerby or confronted in any other way that they would have fled as evidenced by one man dying in the parking lot and the other being caught a couple of blocks away. >>
It's not unreasonable to believe they'd be less likely to be armed when they attempt a burglary and not an armed robbery, I'd agree.
But I also think it's unreasonable to say the dealer should have assumed they were unarmed. I sure as hell wouldn't assume they were unarmed. I would assume they *were* armed, though I have no idea when and whether I'd have decided to pull the trigger. I'm certainly not going to second-guess someone who had to make that snap decision.
Man oh man. Just read the thread. Dumb cali laws. That's why I love it here in Texas. The Home is a Castle law states you can use deadly force if someone is attempting to rob you even if they are unarmed. If someone was at my place trying to break in, "pop pop" no more problem and the Police and will shake your hand for it and you'll be a local hero on the news as well. It doesn't even have to be your property. I remember a news story not too long ago where a neighbor was sitting outside when some thugs came up to the house next door, proceeded to break-in, and started loading stuff into their van. He went inside, calmly got his rifle, called 911, stated to the dispatch that he was going to shoot them if they didn't leave, went back outside, and yelled at them to leave. They didn't so he opened fire on them and took one of the punks down. The others fled but were caught later. The guy was a local hero.
The business owner shouldn't be the one being forced to take a chance on the robber NOT being armed. The robber should be the one taking the chance of potentially being killed for breaking into someone's shop. Don't Mess with Texas!
<< <i>By breaking in at 4a.m. they are, or at least thought they were, avoiding confrontation. It's not unreasonable to think that they were not armed and that if they had been spotted by a passerby or confronted in any other way that they would have fled as evidenced by one man dying in the parking lot and the other being caught a couple of blocks away. >>
It's not unreasonable to believe they'd be less likely to be armed when they attempt a burglary and not an armed robbery, I'd agree.
But I also think it's unreasonable to say the dealer should have assumed they were unarmed. I sure as hell wouldn't assume they were unarmed. I would assume they *were* armed, though I have no idea when and whether I'd have decided to pull the trigger. I'm certainly not going to second-guess someone who had to make that snap decision. >>
No, I meant for us, the Monday Morning Quarterbackers, it is not unreasonable to think that they were unarmed. If I'm the shop owner, I'm assuming that they are and if I have 9 rounds then I'm pulling that trigger 10 times.
<<<The business owner shouldn't be the one being forced to take a chance on the robber NOT being armed. The robber should be the one taking the chance of potentially being killed for breaking into someone's shop.>>>
Bingo!!!!
You're right PG and so is Texas. A man needs to protect his family, life, and possessions. Let Pilosi and her ilk cry for the criminal thugs that would stomp all over your rights as a human being.
<< <i>I would imagine that for a lot of men that the fact that they were within their right to kill doesn't make it a whole lot easier to go through the rest of life knowing that they had taken the life of another. This sad story is very real for the three people directly involved and their lives are forever changed. This story and others like it deserve more attention and deeper dialogue than the "only in America!" and "shoot 'em good!" type of responses. >>
I fully agree with this assessment but simply will not entertain defensive arguments with regard to the perpetrators until more facts come to light. The news media has a way of playing with the public to increase their profit margin and there are many facts which are unknown in this particular case.
Taking a life cannot be undone nor made better in any way shape or form. No amount of rehabilitation can change this for the shop owner and he will have to figure out a method of dealing with it in his own way.
Catching a thief in the act and rehabilitating him/her so that they have a fuller understanding of their place in society is one thing but killing them without that opportunity is something completely different. Without attempting to defend the thieves actions at this point in time, I feel that it is much more reasonable to defend the shop owners actions regardless of the outcome.
As I stated earlier, I've dealt with this fellow and he's no dummy so there must have been some reason to trigger the events which lead to a loss of life. And no, I am not of the impression that every burglar should be shot as I would like to believe that most men/women are good people.
Well......except for some eBay sellers but thats a different dialogue!
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
<< <i>If I was running a store I would just load rubber bullets.
They pack a punch and aren't lethal... if you aim in the right place. >>
If you are going to use a firearm for protection of yourself and others, you need to have lead and aim at center mass. Preferably a Mossberg 500 with sawed off barrel and pistol grip. Something to knock 'em dead with less risk of penetrating walls or traveling longer distances and killing bystanders.
<< <i>If I was running a store I would just load rubber bullets.
They pack a punch and aren't lethal... if you aim in the right place. >>
Of course, if the "nonlethal" option results in the perp getting away, hitting another shop a few weeks later and killing that shop's owner, you may wish you didn't set phasers to stun...
<< <i>The business owner shouldn't be the one being forced to take a chance on the robber NOT being armed. The robber should be the one taking the chance of potentially being killed for breaking into someone's shop. Don't Mess with Texas! >>
Well said
Positive BST transactions with: too many names to list! 36 at last count.
<< <i>The business owner shouldn't be the one being forced to take a chance on the robber NOT being armed. The robber should be the one taking the chance of potentially being killed for breaking into someone's shop. Don't Mess with Texas! >>
Well said >>
Totally agree. Common sense lives.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Here is another article from about an hour ago. I also heard on a radio news report "the theives came through the front door". I still take all the reports with a grain of salt but really hope the owner stays on the no arrest side.
May 18, 2009
No arrest in shooting of alleged burglar by Marconi Avenue shop owner From Bill Lindelof:
Sacramento County sheriff's detectives continue to investigate the fatal shooting this morning of a man they say was breaking into a coin and jewelry.
The suspect was killed by the owner of the store on the 4900 block of Marconi Avenue. The 65-year-old owner has not been arrested, a sheriff's spokesman said.
The district attorney will determine if any charges are filed against the owner, based on results of the sheriff's investigation.
The shop owner was inside the store when the incident began at about 4:15 a.m. Investigators are gathering evidence that will help determine if the shooting was justified.
Sheriff's Sgt. Tim Curran said two men approached the store, which had been the target of another break-in on April 29. This time, the owner was inside and called the sheriff's department to report two men in their mid-20s and wearing black ski masks trying to enter.
Curran said that as the owner spoke on the phone with department personnel, the person taking the call heard several gunshots.
"Then the business owner said one subject was down in the parking lot," Curran said.
Deputies arrived to find a body in the parking lot. Fire department emergency personnel pronounced the man dead at the scene.
The name of the dead man, who was not carrying identification, has not been released.
Other deputies in the area saw another man near Marconi and Eastern avenues and detained him. Detectives are trying to determine if that 22-year-old man was involved in the attempted break-in.
Comments
<< <i>You fail at reading comprehension. >>
Thank you for your well thought out rebuttal. If you'd actually like to add something to this thread we're all waiting. I mean, sure, you're making us all laugh, but perhaps you'd like to add something of substance. Believe me, we won't hold our breath
<< <i>We need to Man up over here and kick out the girlie men running the place.
<< <i>
LOL, That's what I always thought!
Don't hate on Moderns. Your Kids and Grandkids are going to pay out the A$$ for them when they're your age!
<< <i>Robb clearly is quarreling with that idea. "...executing someone is another." There was clearly no "execution" in this case. I'm not saying the dealer was right or wrong, but he sure as hell didn't "execute" anyone. >>
I'd agree that "execution" is rather strong. At most, if it's ruled that the use of deadly force wasn't justified, we'd probably be looking at voluntary manslaughter, which legally isn't even murder.
But he wasn't saying no attempt to commit a crime was taking place.
5/18/2009
Store Owner Shoots Burglary Suspect
On May 18, 2009, at 4:16 a.m., the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department’s Communications Center received a 911 call from a subject who said two suspects wearing black ski masks were attempting to break into his business in the 4900 block of Marconi Avenue. The call taker heard multiple gunshots while still on the line with the business owner. The business owner told the call taker one of the suspects was lying in the parking lot and the second subject was trying to help him. Deputies arrived and found an unidentified Hispanic male lying on the ground and suffering from a gunshot wound to his upper body. Paramedics pronounced the suspect dead at the scene. The second suspect had fled from the scene.
At 5:18 a.m., deputies searching the area detained a 22-year-old Hispanic male at the corner of Marconi Avenue and Eastern Avenue. He will be interviewed by detectives to determine what, if any, involvement he had in the incident.
The business owner, a 65-year-old male, has not been arrested. Sheriff’s Homicide Bureau detectives will conduct a thorough investigation and forward their report to the District Attorney’s office. The District Attorney’s office will determine what, if any, charges will be filed in this case. The suspect who was killed will be identified by the Sacramento County Coroner’s office and his name will be released after his next of kin are notified.
<< <i>its just a real shame that someone can prowl around your home or business...your livelyhood with obvious intensions but you have to consult with a lawyer before you can take any action,.Or you have to be savagely attacked. But even then the monday morning quarterbacks will be judging your actions safe and secure in their homes.
............you're right. you can't shoot 'em, shucks, you're not even allowed to WATER-BOARD 'EM!
Do we know if they gained entry to the shop? .....No.
Until we know these facts, we are only speculating. I hope it turns out OK for the dealer, I don't feel a bit bad for the criminals.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>The living suspect could be charged with homicide also, I believe--yes--no?---------------------------------BigE >>
No, if they had killed the owner, then yes. >>
That is incorrect. He can be charged with the death of his cohort (if the owner isn't) >>
Please site the law here, and let's assume both suspects were unarmed.
<< <i>............and let's assume both suspects were unarmed. >>
Can we also assume that these two were recent SUMMA CUM LAUDE college grads lining up simply to apply for a job?
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>The living suspect could be charged with homicide also, I believe--yes--no?---------------------------------BigE >>
No, if they had killed the owner, then yes. >>
That is incorrect. He can be charged with the death of his cohort (if the owner isn't) >>
Please site the law here, and let's assume both suspects were unarmed. >>
You can do your own research but most states have laws where if someone (anyone, including your accomplices) is hurt while you are committing a crime, you are responsible. In some states the one that got away could be charged and convicted of first degree murder even if it is his accomplice that got "body bagged".
<< <i>The living suspect could be charged with homicide also, I believe--yes--no?---------------------------------BigE >>
No.
I believe you are referring to a "Felony Murder" charge which is leveled against perpetrators when the victim of a crime is murdered during the commission of a crime. All that "participated" in the crime are charged with Felony Murder in that their participation "enabled" the murder to occur. Whether they committed the murder or not.
Refer to the Lisl Auman case in Denver Colorado where she was charged with Felony Murder because the fellow she was with killed a police officer.
Ref page.
Her conviction was over turned.
The name is LEE!
Oak Ridge police arrested Bradford L. Pate, 24, late Friday on a grand jury indictment charging him with felony murder, aggravated burglary and attempted aggravated robbery, Lt. Pamela Breeden said.
Police say Pate and Matthew W. Bennett, 42, kicked open the front door of a home on Wainwright Road the night of Jan. 14 wearing masks and carrying guns. Police say they were threatening the resident, Lynette Kelly, when her 19-year-old son, Deshawn Wright, hit Bennett in the head with a space heater.
Bennett died, and police said Pate ran. The mother and son weren’t hurt.
Police said Tennessee’s definition of felony murder qualifies Pate for the murder charge. State law defines felony murder as a killing committed during the course of another crime.
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
Second of all, I certainly HOPE that the perp was inside the store otherwise this is going to get very sticky for the shop owner.
Third, some say.....it's always a good idea to keep a sat. night sp. around just in case
<< <i>
<< <i>............and let's assume both suspects were unarmed. >>
Can we also assume that these two were recent SUMMA CUM LAUDE college grads lining up simply to apply for a job?
It's not a leap in logic to think that the thieves were unarmed since they chose to break in at 4 in the morning when presumably the place would be empty.
Thinking back on the "What was the shop owner doing there at 4a.m.?" My initial thought was that it doesn't matter as it is his business after all. If he was conducting business until the wee hours of the morning from the night before or getting an early jump on Monday is not any of our business. But what may be an issue is the scenario that someone suggested earlier in that the owner was staying the night there due to the robbery that took place earlier. I know that here in KC this is a no-no. You can not treat your business as a residence unless you work at of your home which was not the case here. IF that's what he was doing and IF that 's a no-no in Sacramento then there may be a legal issue. IF this is the case then at what point as a store owner do you cut your business from your personal life and well-being? You bar the place up, have an alarm, presumably keep the real high end stuff off-site and are insured. I would think that you would have to leave it at that and that camping out at your store would be a bit much. You've already invested in protecting your goods and being compensated for them if something were to happen so why put your life on the line for the sake of protecting little metal discs or whatever your goods are?
<< <i>
<< <i>............and let's assume both suspects were unarmed. >>
Can we also assume that these two were recent SUMMA CUM LAUDE college grads lining up simply to apply for a job?
No, but the only gun mentioned was the one belonging to dealer and the descriptions all call it a burglary, not attempted armed robbery, so this is NOT a leap of faith (as your scenario is).
You'd be suprised at the number of people who have camped out in their business to figure out what happens when they are not around. Nowadays most people secure the site with cameras and microphones and motion detectors and floor sensors and infra red beams and security bars and concertina wire and dogs but maybe this lad didn't do that.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>The living suspect could be charged with homicide also, I believe--yes--no?---------------------------------BigE >>
No, if they had killed the owner, then yes. >>
That is incorrect. He can be charged with the death of his cohort (if the owner isn't) >>
Please site the law here, and let's assume both suspects were unarmed. >>
You can do your own research but most states have laws where if someone (anyone, including your accomplices) is hurt while you are committing a crime, you are responsible. In some states the one that got away could be charged and convicted of first degree murder even if it is his accomplice that got "body bagged". >>
I believe that's only the case if he or the accomplice was armed, and he knew it.
<< <i>Second if he recently had a breakin and he was their guarding his store by sleeping there, then he made the right decision, because he stopped a breakin. >>
This could just as easily work against him, as it could show he was "lying in wait" to exact revenge. In other words, it may have introduced an element of premeditation.
I'm not saying it *should*, but thinking this through legal realities, I can see this being problematic for him.
Your leap in logic IS unreasonable..... unarmed because they are breaking in at 4:00AM?.... I could just as easily assume that they are gang members using your reasoning.
Must admit, I won't lose any sleep over the fate of the robbers.
<< <i>Your leap in logic IS unreasonable..... unarmed because they are breaking in at 4:00AM?.... >>
I would say it makes it more likely that they were unarmed -- burglars, unlike armed robbers in broad daylight, often are. I certainly wouldn't claim that the shop owner should have assumed this, though.
If ever face criminal charges, I want you on my jury.
Too bad he didn’t kill them both. But then again, one less ‘thug’ in the world is better than nothing!
Dave
where the "good guy"
tells the "bad guy"
freeze, put your hands up slowly, and face the wall,
I will frisk you and disarm you if you are carrying a concealed weapon.
If you are just here by accident, or need to use a phone or bathroom, or want to shop, carry on.
In the time it takes to alert the "bad guy" that you have a gun
they can kill you.
Lafayette Grading Set
<< <i>Robb,
Your leap in logic IS unreasonable..... unarmed because they are breaking in at 4:00AM?.... I could just as easily assume that they are gang members using your reasoning. >>
By breaking in at 4a.m. they are, or at least thought they were, avoiding confrontation. It's not unreasonable to think that they were not armed and that if they had been spotted by a passerby or confronted in any other way that they would have fled as evidenced by one man dying in the parking lot and the other being caught a couple of blocks away.
Speculation, not a fact. Until the facts are brought out that's all it is.
<< <i>Score one for the good guys! WTG! >>
TC
i may be a negative boob sometimes but no way in heck would i ever
side with the thugs based on what i have read so far.
i wish the shop owner the best for him and his family.
<< <i>Robb,
If ever face criminal charges, I want you on my jury.
Too bad he didn’t kill them both. But then again, one less ‘thug’ in the world is better than nothing!
Dave >>
Keep in mind that these are just dreamed up scenarios to give the knee-jerkers something to think about. If the shop owner was well within his rights then more power to him and I'm glad that this happened at 4a.m. when the likely hood of innocent bystanders being hit was at a minimum. I would imagine that for a lot of men that the fact that they were within their right to kill doesn't make it a whole lot easier to go through the rest of life knowing that they had taken the life of another. This sad story is very real for the three people directly involved and their lives are forever changed. This story and others like it deserve more attention and deeper dialogue than the "only in America!" and "shoot 'em good!" type of responses.
<< <i><<<By breaking in at 4a.m. they are, or at least thought they were, avoiding confrontation. It's not unreasonable to think that they were not armed and that if they had been spotted by a passerby or confronted in any other way that they would have fled as evidenced by one man dying in the parking lot and the other being caught a couple of blocks away. >>>
Speculation, not a fact. Until the facts are brought out that's all it is. >>
Yeah, it's all speculation as I've been saying all along.
<< <i>By breaking in at 4a.m. they are, or at least thought they were, avoiding confrontation. It's not unreasonable to think that they were not armed and that if they had been spotted by a passerby or confronted in any other way that they would have fled as evidenced by one man dying in the parking lot and the other being caught a couple of blocks away. >>
It's not unreasonable to believe they'd be less likely to be armed when they attempt a burglary and not an armed robbery, I'd agree.
But I also think it's unreasonable to say the dealer should have assumed they were unarmed. I sure as hell wouldn't assume they were unarmed. I would assume they *were* armed, though I have no idea when and whether I'd have decided to pull the trigger. I'm certainly not going to second-guess someone who had to make that snap decision.
The business owner shouldn't be the one being forced to take a chance on the robber NOT being armed. The robber should be the one taking the chance of potentially being killed for breaking into someone's shop. Don't Mess with Texas!
<< <i>
<< <i>By breaking in at 4a.m. they are, or at least thought they were, avoiding confrontation. It's not unreasonable to think that they were not armed and that if they had been spotted by a passerby or confronted in any other way that they would have fled as evidenced by one man dying in the parking lot and the other being caught a couple of blocks away. >>
It's not unreasonable to believe they'd be less likely to be armed when they attempt a burglary and not an armed robbery, I'd agree.
But I also think it's unreasonable to say the dealer should have assumed they were unarmed. I sure as hell wouldn't assume they were unarmed. I would assume they *were* armed, though I have no idea when and whether I'd have decided to pull the trigger. I'm certainly not going to second-guess someone who had to make that snap decision. >>
No, I meant for us, the Monday Morning Quarterbackers, it is not unreasonable to think that they were unarmed. If I'm the shop owner, I'm assuming that they are and if I have 9 rounds then I'm pulling that trigger 10 times.
Bingo!!!!
You're right PG and so is Texas. A man needs to protect his family, life, and possessions. Let Pilosi and her ilk cry for the criminal thugs that would stomp all over your rights as a human being.
<< <i>lol @ robb.
i may be a negative boob sometimes but no way in heck would i ever
side with the thugs based on what i have read so far.
i wish the shop owner the best for him and his family. >>
This is the second time that you ansd I agree on something!
Its gettin better all the time!
The name is LEE!
They pack a punch and aren't lethal... if you aim in the right place.
<< <i>I would imagine that for a lot of men that the fact that they were within their right to kill doesn't make it a whole lot easier to go through the rest of life knowing that they had taken the life of another. This sad story is very real for the three people directly involved and their lives are forever changed. This story and others like it deserve more attention and deeper dialogue than the "only in America!" and "shoot 'em good!" type of responses. >>
I fully agree with this assessment but simply will not entertain defensive arguments with regard to the perpetrators until more facts come to light. The news media has a way of playing with the public to increase their profit margin and there are many facts which are unknown in this particular case.
Taking a life cannot be undone nor made better in any way shape or form. No amount of rehabilitation can change this for the shop owner and he will have to figure out a method of dealing with it in his own way.
Catching a thief in the act and rehabilitating him/her so that they have a fuller understanding of their place in society is one thing but killing them without that opportunity is something completely different. Without attempting to defend the thieves actions at this point in time, I feel that it is much more reasonable to defend the shop owners actions regardless of the outcome.
As I stated earlier, I've dealt with this fellow and he's no dummy so there must have been some reason to trigger the events which lead to a loss of life. And no, I am not of the impression that every burglar should be shot as I would like to believe that most men/women are good people.
Well......except for some eBay sellers but thats a different dialogue!
The name is LEE!
<< <i>If I was running a store I would just load rubber bullets.
They pack a punch and aren't lethal... if you aim in the right place. >>
If you are going to use a firearm for protection of yourself and others, you need to have lead and aim at center mass. Preferably a Mossberg 500 with sawed off barrel and pistol grip. Something to knock 'em dead with less risk of penetrating walls or traveling longer distances and killing bystanders.
<< <i>If I was running a store I would just load rubber bullets.
They pack a punch and aren't lethal... if you aim in the right place. >>
Of course, if the "nonlethal" option results in the perp getting away, hitting another shop a few weeks later and killing that shop's owner, you may wish you didn't set phasers to stun...
<< <i>The business owner shouldn't be the one being forced to take a chance on the robber NOT being armed. The robber should be the one taking the chance of potentially being killed for breaking into someone's shop. Don't Mess with Texas! >>
Well said
<< <i>
<< <i>The business owner shouldn't be the one being forced to take a chance on the robber NOT being armed. The robber should be the one taking the chance of potentially being killed for breaking into someone's shop. Don't Mess with Texas! >>
Well said
Totally agree. Common sense lives.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
May 18, 2009
No arrest in shooting of alleged burglar by Marconi Avenue shop owner
From Bill Lindelof:
Sacramento County sheriff's detectives continue to investigate the fatal shooting this morning of a man they say was breaking into a coin and jewelry.
The suspect was killed by the owner of the store on the 4900 block of Marconi Avenue. The 65-year-old owner has not been arrested, a sheriff's spokesman said.
The district attorney will determine if any charges are filed against the owner, based on results of the sheriff's investigation.
The shop owner was inside the store when the incident began at about 4:15 a.m. Investigators are gathering evidence that will help determine if the shooting was justified.
Sheriff's Sgt. Tim Curran said two men approached the store, which had been the target of another break-in on April 29. This time, the owner was inside and called the sheriff's department to report two men in their mid-20s and wearing black ski masks trying to enter.
Curran said that as the owner spoke on the phone with department personnel, the person taking the call heard several gunshots.
"Then the business owner said one subject was down in the parking lot," Curran said.
Deputies arrived to find a body in the parking lot. Fire department emergency personnel pronounced the man dead at the scene.
The name of the dead man, who was not carrying identification, has not been released.
Other deputies in the area saw another man near Marconi and Eastern avenues and detained him. Detectives are trying to determine if that 22-year-old man was involved in the attempted break-in.
Dave