I feel for the shop owner being stuck in a gut wrenching decision, but I feel for the person who died. It is sad to think his eternal fate is forever sealed and may have not been packing and may have had no intentions of harming anyone. No one deserves the death penalty for burglary, but on the other hand other would be robbers may be less determined to rob the guy. All I know is if you keep getting robbed and you're in a bad part of town then why not move the shop?Text
I totally disagree with the above statement. When a burglar takes the risk of robbing someone or someplace, he automatically had decided to put his life in peril. It is his actions, and his actions, alone that have sealed his eternal fate. I, for one, applaud the owner for being at his place of business and attempting to protect it and possibly, his own life too. It is unfortunate that laws in this land have become so liberalized that the owner could possibly face criminal charges for such as the above (and I hope he does not). It is these types of laws that can make a society so civilized that such a society ultimately rots from the inside and a new society has to be created. IMHO.
<< <i>Let's sum up the happenings that morning.. >>
We can't, yet. >>
That didn't stop the OP from "knowing" that "the owner was correct in doing what he did." Then again, factual writing isn't his strong suit. ...Mike >>
Where did I say that and where have I ever had a problem with my facts here? >>
Halfstrike was correct. My comment was not directed at you, but rather the one who feels the need to explain the law to the rest of us while doing a poor job of it to boot....Mike >>
Gotcha, I saw OP I assumed it was me, I'll step to the side now......
<< <i>I feel for the shop owner being stuck in a gut wrenching decision, but I feel for the person who died. It is sad to think his eternal fate is forever sealed and may have not been packing and may have had no intentions of harming anyone. No one deserves the death penalty for burglary, but on the other hand other would be robbers may be less determined to rob the guy. All I know is if you keep getting robbed and you're in a bad part of town then why not move the shop?Text
I totally disagree with the above statement. When a burglar takes the risk of robbing someone or someplace, he automatically had decided to put his life in peril. It is his actions, and his actions, alone that have sealed his eternal fate. I, for one, applaud the owner for being at his place of business and attempting to protect it and possibly, his own life too. It is unfortunate that laws in this land have become so liberalized that the owner could possibly face criminal charges for such as the above (and I hope he does not). It is these types of laws that can make a society so civilized that such a society ultimately rots from the inside and a new society has to be created. IMHO. >>
so deciding to steal someone is grounds for eternal hell? Not in my book. Once again I feel for a shop owner for having to make a decision, but no one deserves death for theft/burglary.
<< <i>Let's sum up the happenings that morning.. >>
We can't, yet. >>
That didn't stop the OP from "knowing" that "the owner was correct in doing what he did." Then again, factual writing isn't his strong suit. ...Mike >>
Blucc was just stating what was in the news release. So why are you so quick to be snyde, especially unprovoked? Seems like you could use some lessons in playing nice. >>
Dear Mrs. Lady,
Thank you for the advice on how to get along with others. While I do not suffer fools well, I will take it under advisement.
However, you have misinterpreted who my comments were directed at. Furthermore, I think you will find that I'm not snide except when others take liberties with speaking authoritatively when they have no business doing so, and talk down to the rest of us at the same time ("I will explain the law to you again..").
Respectfully...Mike
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
Suspect Booked In Connection To Burglary That Led To Deadly Shooting
On May 18, 2009, at 12:44 p.m., Sheriff’s Homicide detectives booked 21-year-old Sergio Antonio Arauza into the Sacramento County Main Jail. Arauza had been stopped by deputies shortly after a business owner had shot and killed one burglar after he called 911 at 4:16 a.m., to report two masked suspects were breaking into his business. Detectives believe Arauza was the suspect who fled from the scene after his partner was mortally wounded by the business owner.
Arauza was booked (see photo below) on one count of burglary and for violating his probation. He is being held in lieu of $100,500 bail and is scheduled to be arraigned on May 20, 2009, at 1:30 p.m. in Department 62. The investigation into the shooting is ongoing and detectives are attempting to determine if Arauza, and the suspect who was killed, are connected to a series of Sacramento-area business burglaries which had occurred earlier in the morning.
From updated sacbee article
Arauza and his alleged robbery accomplice were believed to have ridden in a maroon Toyota Camry later found outside the shop. The car contained some items that investigators believed were stolen.
< I feel for the shop owner being stuck in a gut wrenching decision, but I feel for the person who died. It is sad to think his eternal fate is forever sealed and may have not been packing and may have had no intentions of harming anyone. No one deserves the death penalty for burglary, but on the other hand other would be robbers may be less determined to rob the guy. All I know is if you keep getting robbed and you're in a bad part of town then why not move the shop?Text
I totally disagree with the above statement. When a burglar takes the risk of robbing someone or someplace, he automatically had decided to put his life in peril. It is his actions, and his actions, alone that have sealed his eternal fate. I, for one, applaud the owner for being at his place of business and attempting to protect it and possibly, his own life too. It is unfortunate that laws in this land have become so liberalized that the owner could possibly face criminal charges for such as the above (and I hope he does not). It is these types of laws that can make a society so civilized that such a society ultimately rots from the inside and a new society has to be created. IMHO. >>
so deciding to steal someone is grounds for eternal hell? Not in my book. Once again I feel for a shop owner for having to make a decision, but no one deserves death for theft/burglary.
All he needs is a jury of peers, peers as in good folks who are tired of criminals having more rights than victims, peers as in people who actually work for a living, peers as in people who value honesty and decency. Most likey he will get a jury of the dead man's peers. If I was on that Jury, there is no way in hell that man would ever see one second behind bars.
JJ
Need a Barber Half with ANACS photo certificate. If you have one for sale please PM me. Current Ebay auctions
I'm not pro criminal. You got to quit with this approach. Being sad for someone's soul is not pro criminal. I am a Christian who is saddened that the man is probably in hell today because of his actions and a split second decision by everyone. On the other hand I could not prosecute the shop owner if he felt he was in danger.
If I'm a detective, I'm not buying that a guy who normally opens at 10a.m. is in the shop at 4a.m. to check the trading price of gold. If that same gentleman is then telling me that the guy he shot was in the store at the time... it'd be very hard to believe him. I hope that the evidence backs the shop owner's story.
<< <i>If I'm a detective, I'm not buying that a guy who normally opens at 10a.m. is in the shop at 4a.m. to check the trading price of gold. If that same gentleman is then telling me that the guy he shot was in the store at the time... it'd be very hard to believe him. I hope that the evidence backs the shop owner's story. >>
Where I live, the burden of proof would be on you. That is how it should be everywhere.
Collector and Researcher of Liberty Head Nickels. ANA LM-6053
<< <i>If I'm a detective, I'm not buying that a guy who normally opens at 10a.m. is in the shop at 4a.m. to check the trading price of gold. If that same gentleman is then telling me that the guy he shot was in the store at the time... it'd be very hard to believe him. I hope that the evidence backs the shop owner's story. >>
The 5:00 news had the sheriffs saying it looked justifiable. Once again I wont get into why he was there but he had a good reason and it had nothing to do with waiting for potential perps.
I sure hope people dont feel that shop owners are only in their shops during the open hours.
<< <i>If I'm a detective, I'm not buying that a guy who normally opens at 10a.m. is in the shop at 4a.m. to check the trading price of gold. If that same gentleman is then telling me that the guy he shot was in the store at the time... it'd be very hard to believe him. I hope that the evidence backs the shop owner's story. >>
The 5:00 news had the sheriffs saying it looked justifiable. Once again I wont get into why he was there but he had a good reason and it had nothing to do with waiting for potential perps.
I sure hope people dont feel that shop owners are only in their shops during the open hours. >>
It was reported by the press that he was there to check gold prices. Are you saying that's not the case?
<< <i>There are more pro-criminal people here than one would think. >>
Are you sure that you're not confusing "pro-criminal" with "pro-law"? Said a bit differently, I don't want people to go around shooting people without very, very good reason. IMO, good reason doesn't include wearing a ski mask at 4AM, but does include aggravated breaking & entering while wearing a ski-mask -- and given the nebulous nature of the facts in this particular case I'd say that differentiating between the two is very pertinent. Furthermore, the law enforcement officials on the scene seem to agree. Respectfully....Mike
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
<< <i>If I'm a detective, I'm not buying that a guy who normally opens at 10a.m. is in the shop at 4a.m. to check the trading price of gold. If that same gentleman is then telling me that the guy he shot was in the store at the time... it'd be very hard to believe him. I hope that the evidence backs the shop owner's story. >>
The 5:00 news had the sheriffs saying it looked justifiable. Once again I wont get into why he was there but he had a good reason and it had nothing to do with waiting for potential perps.
I sure hope people dont feel that shop owners are only in their shops during the open hours. >>
It was reported by the press that he was there to check gold prices. Are you saying that's not the case? >>
I am saying he had a very valid reason to be in the shop the time he was there.
<< <i>There are more pro-criminal people here than one would think. >>
Wow, this is loaded. No reasonable person is "pro-criminal." Some well-meaning and intelligent people can disagree about how much force is justifiable under a variety of situations, and about how much protection the legal system has to provide them in the "innocent until proven guilty" sense.
Having said that, if these guys did indeed get into the store and charging after the owner, I can't see a reasonable jury anywhere convicting the owner. Original reports made it sound like they may have (a) not been armed and (b) not even gained entry into the store. And under those circumstances a reasonable person could construct an "excessive use of force" scenario. But again, if they did in fact get into the store and were charging the owner, pop pop, see ya.
<< <i>I am saying he had a very valid reason to be in the shop the time he was there. >>
I'm not getting the objection some seem to have with the guy being in his store when it wasn't open. It's HIS FREAKING STORE, for crying out loud- why does he *need* a reason?
To anyone joining the conversation for the first time on page 9, please understand that this discussion was A. based on breaking news and B. contains a lot of "what if" scenarios.
<< <i>I am saying he had a very valid reason to be in the shop the time he was there. >>
I'm not getting the objection some seem to have with the guy being in his store when it wasn't open. It's HIS FREAKING STORE, for crying out loud- why does he *need* a reason? >>
<< <i>I'm not getting the objection some seem to have with the guy being in his store when it wasn't open. It's HIS FREAKING STORE, for crying out loud- why does he *need* a reason? >>
The ONLY reason it might matter is because he was burglarized fairly recently, so some may think he was "laying in wait" to get payback at the next people who would try to rob him overnight. IF that is suspected as a motivation it could be bad for him since it would show some premeditation, as if he was "waiting" and hoping someone would come so he could pop them.
(I don't believe that, but I don't know, and considering what lawyers will portray in could, it IS a potential issue.)
Again, please don't misinterpret opinions of what the law WILL do with what we think they SHOULD do. I think we're getting into some trouble in this thread because of the lack of drawing that distinction.
<< <i>I am saying he had a very valid reason to be in the shop the time he was there. >>
I'm not getting the objection some seem to have with the guy being in his store when it wasn't open. It's HIS FREAKING STORE, for crying out loud- why does he *need* a reason? >>
i don't know about you guys but i work in IT and i know a lot of people who work in the wee hours and enjoy that time of night. i used to go grocery shopping at 3 AM at the 24 hour stores because it was so quiet and peaceful. I would stay up late and get my work done while customers are sleeping.
I also know many business owners who think nothing of getting up and going to work late at night forgetting something they need to do.
<< <i>And under those circumstances a reasonable person could construct an "excessive use of force" scenario. >>
Yep, that's true, and I'd probably construct such a scenario in my mind, but if it came to trial and I was a juror, I'd never admit it, and I'd guarantee there would be no guilty verdict, even if I believe the owner was "lying in wait".
I guess I am not such a good Christian, yet I still profess to be Christian anyway. I'm still working on the 'good' part, though I doubt I'll ever master it (actually, I know that I won't) while I am still living.
<< <i>I am saying he had a very valid reason to be in the shop the time he was there. >>
I'm not getting the objection some seem to have with the guy being in his store when it wasn't open. It's HIS FREAKING STORE, for crying out loud- why does he *need* a reason? >>
i don't know about you guys but i work in IT and i know a lot of people who work in the wee hours and enjoy that time of night. i used to go grocery shopping at 3 AM at the 24 hour stores because it was so quiet and peaceful. I would stay up late and get my work done while customers are sleeping.
I also know many business owners who think nothing of getting up and going to work late at night forgetting something they need to do.
To me it is not odd at all. >>
I understand that and agree with you up to the point of him having previously being robbed and choosing to be there alone at four in the morning- six hours prior to opening.
I would like to know if the burglary back in April was done during or after store hours.
<< <i>Yep, that's true, and I'd probably construct such a scenario in my mind, but if it came to trial and I was a juror, I'd never admit it, and I'd guarantee there would be no guilty verdict, even if I believe the owner was "lying in wait". >>
For the sake of argument, assuming one was concerned about being burglarized, how exactly would one go about protecting his store against that without "lying in wait"? Just show up at random times and hope to catch crooks in the act?
<< <i>I am saying he had a very valid reason to be in the shop the time he was there. >>
I'm not getting the objection some seem to have with the guy being in his store when it wasn't open. It's HIS FREAKING STORE, for crying out loud- why does he *need* a reason? >>
i don't know about you guys but i work in IT and i know a lot of people who work in the wee hours and enjoy that time of night. i used to go grocery shopping at 3 AM at the 24 hour stores because it was so quiet and peaceful. I would stay up late and get my work done while customers are sleeping.
I also know many business owners who think nothing of getting up and going to work late at night forgetting something they need to do.
To me it is not odd at all. >>
I understand that and agree with you up to the point of him having previously being robbed and choosing to be there alone at four in the morning- six hours prior to opening.
I would like to know if the burglary back in April was done during or after store hours. >>
<< <i>I'm having a hard time understanding why this "old man" who had previously been robbed a week or two ago and is in a line of business that is regularly targeted by thieves would be alone in his business at 4 in the morning
Sort of like the woman you goes out drinking alone....she sort of deserves trouble, right?
Dave >>
No, not at all. I'm just wondering if the shop owner was having a hard time separating himself from his business. >>
That should be irrelevant. He wasn't the one trying to rob someone else or destroy their livelihood. If someone commits a crime, or attempts to, why should others face consequences.
If people would own up to the responsibility of their actions, maybe they would think twice about what they are going to do?
Someone jaywalking should not be hurt. Someone trying to break into a house/business should expect that they may not survive...packing or not.
<< <i>Yep, that's true, and I'd probably construct such a scenario in my mind, but if it came to trial and I was a juror, I'd never admit it, and I'd guarantee there would be no guilty verdict, even if I believe the owner was "lying in wait". >>
For the sake of argument, assuming one was concerned about being burglarized, how exactly would one go about protecting his store against that without "lying in wait"? Just show up at random times and hope to catch crooks in the act? >>
That was mentioned on previous pages as well. Basically- barred windows/doors, alarm system, high end goods kept off-site, paid security patrol, video surveillance, etc.
<< <i>That was mentioned on previous pages as well. Basically- barred windows/doors, alarm system, high end goods kept off-site, paid security patrol, video surveillance, etc. >>
And maybe the owner decided it would be easier to do it himself. Who knows? I'm still not getting why any of the reasoning going into his decision as to how to protect his store is anybody's business but his.
I will admit, though- it's sure a lot easier to second guess peoples' choices after you know the results.
<< <i>I'm not getting the objection some seem to have with the guy being in his store when it wasn't open. It's HIS FREAKING STORE, for crying out loud- why does he *need* a reason? >>
The ONLY reason it might matter is because he was burglarized fairly recently, so some may think he was "laying in wait" to get payback at the next people who would try to rob him overnight. IF that is suspected as a motivation it could be bad for him since it would show some premeditation, as if he was "waiting" and hoping someone would come so he could pop them.
(I don't believe that, but I don't know, and considering what lawyers will portray in could, it IS a potential issue.)
Again, please don't misinterpret opinions of what the law WILL do with what we think they SHOULD do. I think we're getting into some trouble in this thread because of the lack of drawing that distinction. >>
I see your scenario and a lawyer may very well bring that up and he may have to prove that he was there strictly for business reasons. I knew what you were talking about and it will probably be thrown out there that he had been camping there the last few days.
Suspect Booked In Connection To Burglary That Led To Deadly Shooting
On May 18, 2009, at 12:44 p.m., Sheriff’s Homicide detectives booked 21-year-old Sergio Antonio Arauza into the Sacramento County Main Jail. Arauza had been stopped by deputies shortly after a business owner had shot and killed one burglar after he called 911 at 4:16 a.m., to report two masked suspects were breaking into his business. Detectives believe Arauza was the suspect who fled from the scene after his partner was mortally wounded by the business owner.
Arauza was booked (see photo below) on one count of burglary and for violating his probation. He is being held in lieu of $100,500 bail and is scheduled to be arraigned on May 20, 2009, at 1:30 p.m. in Department 62. The investigation into the shooting is ongoing and detectives are attempting to determine if Arauza, and the suspect who was killed, are connected to a series of Sacramento-area business burglaries which had occurred earlier in the morning.
From updated sacbee article
Arauza and his alleged robbery accomplice were believed to have ridden in a maroon Toyota Camry later found outside the shop. The car contained some items that investigators believed were stolen. >>
On probation and was offered Bond.. Let's run to the border and have "Dog" Chapman get his ass. What's the matter with California? Put up $10k and they will never see the man again..
<< <i>I feel for the shop owner being stuck in a gut wrenching decision, but I feel for the person who died. It is sad to think his eternal fate is forever sealed and may have not been packing and may have had no intentions of harming anyone. No one deserves the death penalty for burglary, but on the other hand other would be robbers may be less determined to rob the guy. >>
Actually, I don't feel that bad for the person who died. He had a choice NOT to rob the place. He had a choice NOT to be a crook. Plenty of people don't have good/rich lives but they don't turn to crime to take from others. The guy had a mask on. It was not an attempted crime of opportunity, it was premeditated crime. As for the death penalty for burglary......it may have turned into assault and battery or worse. We won't know. We won't know what he was willing to do or would have done. One crime could easily turn into the next. 3 strike law makes people do bad things (and I am not against the 3 strikes law). You (nor I) can say what the criminal was willing to do. The shop owner did nothing wrong, imho, and had every right to be in his store WHENEVER he wanted, and to protect it with lethal force. It wasn't like some kid was spray painting the sidewalk and got shot.
<< <i> All I know is if you keep getting robbed and you're in a bad part of town then why not move the shop? >>
Why should he have to move? We don't know how good his business was, how much he had vested in the location/setup, how much a new location would be, his commute, etc. Also, what is wrong with respectable businesses being in "bad part of town"? How do you think they get better?
Why should RESPECTABLE LAW-ABIDING folks always have to move aside for criminals? Screw that!
A non-numismatic buddy that works with me lives a few blocks away from the store. He just popped his head in my office to let me know about the incident this morning (it's been a long day here at work). He was elated to have, as he put it, "one less hood in the hood." Probably not very Christian, but a fairly pragmatic outlook for a local resident with a family.
<< <i>If the robber was shot in the front I suspect the store owner will be o.k. and no charges filed. The body
being found in the parking lot does not help the shop owners case. >>
He was shot inside the store then ran out with the other robber. >>
A wound to the upper body does not cause immediate death. Had the bullet nicked an artery enough to cause a rupture, death might be imminent but still not be immediate.
Simply being shot would definitely cause an adrenaline spurt which would elevate the burglars blood pressure which would hasten the loss of blood, either internally or externally but death would still not be immediate. There would still be plenty of time left to run from the store and make it into the parking lot before his body realized the mortality of the wound. At that point conciousness could have been lost, followed by death. It was already stated that the other robber stopped to try and help his cohort. This tells me that there may have been enough life left in the body that the cohort felt he could render assistance in the retreat.
Immediate death is much different then imminent death and can cover a lot of different scenarios. For example, a head wound which causes immediate unconciousness appears like immediate death but is more than likely imminent death without regaining conciousness. There are cases on record where even a guillotine did not cause immediate death which is one of the reason the practice was dropped.
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.
The Boston Globe ran a story yesterday about all the problems illegal aliens are having getting through college in the US, maybe they were just a couple of illegal undergrads trying to raise some tuition money?
<< <i>I'm having a hard time understanding why this "old man" who had previously been robbed a week or two ago and is in a line of business that is regularly targeted by thieves would be alone in his business at 4 in the morning
Sort of like the woman you goes out drinking alone....she sort of deserves trouble, right?
Dave >>
No, not at all. I'm just wondering if the shop owner was having a hard time separating himself from his business. >>
That should be irrelevant. He wasn't the one trying to rob someone else or destroy their livelihood. If someone commits a crime, or attempts to, why should others face consequences.
If people would own up to the responsibility of their actions, maybe they would think twice about what they are going to do?
Someone jaywalking should not be hurt. Someone trying to break into a house/business should expect that they may not survive...packing or not. >>
in the end our opinion doesn't matter. The law is drawn up on facts, not opinions and the law may say he wasn't justified.
<< <i>I feel for the shop owner being stuck in a gut wrenching decision, but I feel for the person who died. It is sad to think his eternal fate is forever sealed and may have not been packing and may have had no intentions of harming anyone. No one deserves the death penalty for burglary, but on the other hand other would be robbers may be less determined to rob the guy. All I know is if you keep getting robbed and you're in a bad part of town then why not move the shop?Text
I totally disagree with the above statement. When a burglar takes the risk of robbing someone or someplace, he automatically had decided to put his life in peril. It is his actions, and his actions, alone that have sealed his eternal fate. I, for one, applaud the owner for being at his place of business and attempting to protect it and possibly, his own life too. It is unfortunate that laws in this land have become so liberalized that the owner could possibly face criminal charges for such as the above (and I hope he does not). It is these types of laws that can make a society so civilized that such a society ultimately rots from the inside and a new society has to be created. IMHO. >>
so deciding to steal someone is grounds for eternal hell? Not in my book. Once again I feel for a shop owner for having to make a decision, but no one deserves death for theft/burglary. >>
BBN....you are to be commended for how nice you are. Question....has anyone ever stolen from you? Broken into your home or a business you owned while you were there? Have you ever been alone and threatened, or felt you were threatened, by a masked man (or more than one), in the wee hours of the morning (or even daylight)?
I think you must be the best church goer at your church and/or you have lived a great life and never had anything to fear or family to fear for. Good for you. Not all of us are so lucky. I work hard for what I have and it isn't right if someone tries to steal it from me. If they do, I don't care what happens to them. Eternal or not. If they try to threaten me or my family (or our home), then I do care what happens to them....and I hope it IS eternal and everlasting.
<< <i>Basically- barred windows/doors, alarm system, high end goods kept off-site, paid security patrol, video surveillance, etc. >>
Gee, you are so nice!!! I honestly never expected a forum member to be so generous and pay for all those things, and for someone he doesn't even know! You've single-handedly restored my faith in mankind.
How about letting me partake of your generosity as well? I have a whole lot of securty items I'd just love to use in order to protect myself and my family. Send me a PM and tell me where I can pick up the cash, please!
That is unless you are suggesting that in order to prevent himself from being robbed into poverty, he should fork over huge sums of money to protect his property, which he may have to sell in order to pay for the privilege of not having to fire a gun.
Naw! You couldn't mean that.
Oh, and I could use an armed security guard as well, so please don't make any plans after you get off work. I can't afford to pay a living wage, you understand, so I will be once again subscribing to your generous offer for the hours from 8:00 pm to 8:00 am Monday through Sunday, except for maybe around Christmas time.
Golly gee! Thank you from the bottom of my heart. I look forward to your PM!
In the meantime...
SHOOT 'EM!!! SHOOT 'EM GOOD!!! <=That's a big happy face.
You had better act fast, or the next guy that dies as a result of me not having the security you suggest will be all your fault. If that thought keeps you up at night, then so much the better, since I want my Security Guard wide awake at all times.
<< <i>I feel for the shop owner being stuck in a gut wrenching decision, but I feel for the person who died. It is sad to think his eternal fate is forever sealed and may have not been packing and may have had no intentions of harming anyone. No one deserves the death penalty for burglary, but on the other hand other would be robbers may be less determined to rob the guy. All I know is if you keep getting robbed and you're in a bad part of town then why not move the shop?Text
I totally disagree with the above statement. When a burglar takes the risk of robbing someone or someplace, he automatically had decided to put his life in peril. It is his actions, and his actions, alone that have sealed his eternal fate. I, for one, applaud the owner for being at his place of business and attempting to protect it and possibly, his own life too. It is unfortunate that laws in this land have become so liberalized that the owner could possibly face criminal charges for such as the above (and I hope he does not). It is these types of laws that can make a society so civilized that such a society ultimately rots from the inside and a new society has to be created. IMHO. >>
so deciding to steal someone is grounds for eternal hell? Not in my book. Once again I feel for a shop owner for having to make a decision, but no one deserves death for theft/burglary. >>
BBN....you are to be commended for how nice you are. Question....has anyone ever stolen from you? Broken into your home or a business you owned while you were there? Have you ever been alone and threatened, or felt you were threatened, by a masked man (or more than one), in the wee hours of the morning (or even daylight)?
I think you must be the best church goer at your church and/or you have lived a great life and never had anything to fear or family to fear for. Good for you. Not all of us are so lucky. I work hard for what I have and it isn't right if someone tries to steal it from me. If they do, I don't care what happens to them. Eternal or not. If they try to threaten me or my family (or our home), then I do care what happens to them....and I hope it IS eternal and everlasting. >>
I'm not disagreeing with you or defending some losers. I know many people have selectively ignored that I said that I felt for the store owner for having to make that decision. If someone broke into my home, yes, I would feel threatened enough to probably shoot, but if some say they would not be affected by someone dying from their gunshot then they're a liar. I have never once pinned the blame on the owner. I just believe that many of my fellow conservatives like to plaster "bleeding heart lefty" too easily on anyone who may slightly disagree with them. Christians can't win either way. Either we're lebeled "holier than thou" or hypocrites. Once again I don't know why one can't understand a shop owners actions yet feel bad that someone has to die.
Think here. Trying to physically harm ones family and trying to steal your coins in the dead of night in what they thought would be an unoccupied store are two VERY different things. If someone can't tell the differnt between round metal and their kids then they need help.
Last of all, my life is good. It wasn't always as I almost lost mine last August due to an aortic dissection. I was lukewarm and living not the greatest. I walked that egde of life and almost lost mine to eternal damnation and would have had I not survived that dissection. I guess I'm speaking as someone who almost became an eternally lost one and it's shameful that anyone has to lose theirs without making ammends with God. The robber made that decision to put his life in that situation. I hope he made ammends with God before he slipped away from this Earth
<< <i>I totally disagree with the above statement. When a burglar takes the risk of robbing someone or someplace, he automatically had decided to put his life in peril. It is his actions, and his actions, alone that have sealed his eternal fate. I, for one, applaud the owner for being at his place of business and attempting to protect it and possibly, his own life too. It is unfortunate that laws in this land have become so liberalized that the owner could possibly face criminal charges for such as the above (and I hope he does not). It is these types of laws that can make a society so civilized that such a society ultimately rots from the inside and a new society has to be created. IMHO. >>
<< <i>BBN....you are to be commended for how nice you are. Question....has anyone ever stolen from you? Broken into your home or a business you owned while you were there? Have you ever been alone and threatened, or felt you were threatened, by a masked man (or more than one), in the wee hours of the morning (or even daylight)?
I think you must be the best church goer at your church and/or you have lived a great life and never had anything to fear or family to fear for. Good for you. Not all of us are so lucky. I work hard for what I have and it isn't right if someone tries to steal it from me. If they do, I don't care what happens to them. Eternal or not. If they try to threaten me or my family (or our home), then I do care what happens to them....and I hope it IS eternal and everlasting. >>
Comments
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I totally disagree with the above statement. When a burglar takes the risk of robbing someone or someplace, he automatically had decided to put his life in peril. It is his actions, and his actions, alone that have sealed his eternal fate. I, for one, applaud the owner for being at his place of business and attempting to protect it and possibly, his own life too. It is unfortunate that laws in this land have become so liberalized that the owner could possibly face criminal charges for such as the above (and I hope he does not). It is these types of laws that can make a society so civilized that such a society ultimately rots from the inside and a new society has to be created. IMHO.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Let's sum up the happenings that morning.. >>
We can't, yet. >>
That didn't stop the OP from "knowing" that "the owner was correct in doing what he did." Then again, factual writing isn't his strong suit.
Where did I say that and where have I ever had a problem with my facts here? >>
Halfstrike was correct. My comment was not directed at you, but rather the one who feels the need to explain the law to the rest of us while doing a poor job of it to boot....Mike >>
Gotcha, I saw OP I assumed it was me, I'll step to the side now......
At that point, both deserve to be shot.
End of story.
<< <i>I feel for the shop owner being stuck in a gut wrenching decision, but I feel for the person who died. It is sad to think his eternal fate is forever sealed and may have not been packing and may have had no intentions of harming anyone. No one deserves the death penalty for burglary, but on the other hand other would be robbers may be less determined to rob the guy. All I know is if you keep getting robbed and you're in a bad part of town then why not move the shop?Text
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I totally disagree with the above statement. When a burglar takes the risk of robbing someone or someplace, he automatically had decided to put his life in peril. It is his actions, and his actions, alone that have sealed his eternal fate. I, for one, applaud the owner for being at his place of business and attempting to protect it and possibly, his own life too. It is unfortunate that laws in this land have become so liberalized that the owner could possibly face criminal charges for such as the above (and I hope he does not). It is these types of laws that can make a society so civilized that such a society ultimately rots from the inside and a new society has to be created. IMHO. >>
so deciding to steal someone is grounds for eternal hell? Not in my book. Once again I feel for a shop owner for having to make a decision, but no one deserves death for theft/burglary.
Positive BST Transactions (buyers and sellers): wondercoin, blu62vette, BAJJERFAN, privatecoin, blu62vette, AlanLastufka, privatecoin
#1 1951 Bowman Los Angeles Rams Team Set
#2 1980 Topps Los Angeles Rams Team Set
#8 (and climbing) 1972 Topps Los Angeles Rams Team Set
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Let's sum up the happenings that morning.. >>
We can't, yet. >>
That didn't stop the OP from "knowing" that "the owner was correct in doing what he did." Then again, factual writing isn't his strong suit.
Blucc was just stating what was in the news release. So why are you so quick to be snyde, especially unprovoked? Seems like you could use some lessons in playing nice. >>
Dear Mrs. Lady,
Thank you for the advice on how to get along with others. While I do not suffer fools well, I will take it under advisement.
However, you have misinterpreted who my comments were directed at. Furthermore, I think you will find that I'm not snide except when others take liberties with speaking authoritatively when they have no business doing so, and talk down to the rest of us at the same time ("I will explain the law to you again..").
Respectfully...Mike
Suspect Booked In Connection To Burglary
That Led To Deadly Shooting
On May 18, 2009, at 12:44 p.m., Sheriff’s Homicide detectives booked 21-year-old Sergio Antonio Arauza into the Sacramento County Main Jail. Arauza had been stopped by deputies shortly after a business owner had shot and killed one burglar after he called 911 at 4:16 a.m., to report two masked suspects were breaking into his business. Detectives believe Arauza was the suspect who fled from the scene after his partner was mortally wounded by the business owner.
Arauza was booked (see photo below) on one count of burglary and for violating his probation. He is being held in lieu of $100,500 bail and is scheduled to be arraigned on May 20, 2009, at 1:30 p.m. in Department 62. The investigation into the shooting is ongoing and detectives are attempting to determine if Arauza, and the suspect who was killed, are connected to a series of Sacramento-area business burglaries which had occurred earlier in the morning.
From updated sacbee article
Arauza and his alleged robbery accomplice were believed to have ridden in a maroon Toyota Camry later found outside the shop. The car contained some items that investigators believed were stolen.
who just broke in, in the middle of the night,
and who may be armed and ready to kill him,
how may I help you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I totally disagree with the above statement. When a burglar takes the risk of robbing someone or someplace, he automatically had decided to put his life in peril. It is his actions, and his actions, alone that have sealed his eternal fate. I, for one, applaud the owner for being at his place of business and attempting to protect it and possibly, his own life too. It is unfortunate that laws in this land have become so liberalized that the owner could possibly face criminal charges for such as the above (and I hope he does not). It is these types of laws that can make a society so civilized that such a society ultimately rots from the inside and a new society has to be created. IMHO. >>
so deciding to steal someone is grounds for eternal hell? Not in my book. Once again I feel for a shop owner for having to make a decision, but no one deserves death for theft/burglary.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I still stand behind my above response. We agree to disagree.
JJ
<< <i>SacBee News article is interesting. The bad guys were brothers. Seems they may have robbed five other businesses. >>
I was just about to add the same thing. Brothers witha car of stolen goods and possibly connected to 5 others robberies. Mentioned on video here: Text
Positive BST Transactions (buyers and sellers): wondercoin, blu62vette, BAJJERFAN, privatecoin, blu62vette, AlanLastufka, privatecoin
#1 1951 Bowman Los Angeles Rams Team Set
#2 1980 Topps Los Angeles Rams Team Set
#8 (and climbing) 1972 Topps Los Angeles Rams Team Set
<< <i>If I'm a detective, I'm not buying that a guy who normally opens at 10a.m. is in the shop at 4a.m. to check the trading price of gold. If that same gentleman is then telling me that the guy he shot was in the store at the time... it'd be very hard to believe him. I hope that the evidence backs the shop owner's story. >>
Where I live, the burden of proof would be on you. That is how it should be everywhere.
<< <i>If I'm a detective, I'm not buying that a guy who normally opens at 10a.m. is in the shop at 4a.m. to check the trading price of gold. If that same gentleman is then telling me that the guy he shot was in the store at the time... it'd be very hard to believe him. I hope that the evidence backs the shop owner's story. >>
The 5:00 news had the sheriffs saying it looked justifiable. Once again I wont get into why he was there but he had a good reason and it had nothing to do with waiting for potential perps.
I sure hope people dont feel that shop owners are only in their shops during the open hours.
<< <i>
<< <i>If I'm a detective, I'm not buying that a guy who normally opens at 10a.m. is in the shop at 4a.m. to check the trading price of gold. If that same gentleman is then telling me that the guy he shot was in the store at the time... it'd be very hard to believe him. I hope that the evidence backs the shop owner's story. >>
The 5:00 news had the sheriffs saying it looked justifiable. Once again I wont get into why he was there but he had a good reason and it had nothing to do with waiting for potential perps.
I sure hope people dont feel that shop owners are only in their shops during the open hours. >>
It was reported by the press that he was there to check gold prices. Are you saying that's not the case?
<< <i>There are more pro-criminal people here than one would think. >>
Are you sure that you're not confusing "pro-criminal" with "pro-law"? Said a bit differently, I don't want people to go around shooting people without very, very good reason. IMO, good reason doesn't include wearing a ski mask at 4AM, but does include aggravated breaking & entering while wearing a ski-mask -- and given the nebulous nature of the facts in this particular case I'd say that differentiating between the two is very pertinent. Furthermore, the law enforcement officials on the scene seem to agree. Respectfully....Mike
<< <i>It was reported by the press... >>
The press reports lots of stuff. Sometimes, it's even true.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>If I'm a detective, I'm not buying that a guy who normally opens at 10a.m. is in the shop at 4a.m. to check the trading price of gold. If that same gentleman is then telling me that the guy he shot was in the store at the time... it'd be very hard to believe him. I hope that the evidence backs the shop owner's story. >>
The 5:00 news had the sheriffs saying it looked justifiable. Once again I wont get into why he was there but he had a good reason and it had nothing to do with waiting for potential perps.
I sure hope people dont feel that shop owners are only in their shops during the open hours. >>
It was reported by the press that he was there to check gold prices. Are you saying that's not the case? >>
I am saying he had a very valid reason to be in the shop the time he was there.
<< <i>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 disagree.
SHOOT 'EM GOOD!!!
Yep, I am grinning ear to ear. I guess that makes me a heartless boob. Well, so be it.
One more time now... SHOOT 'EM REAL GOOD!!!
<< <i>There are more pro-criminal people here than one would think. >>
Wow, this is loaded. No reasonable person is "pro-criminal." Some well-meaning and intelligent people can disagree about how much force is justifiable under a variety of situations, and about how much protection the legal system has to provide them in the "innocent until proven guilty" sense.
Having said that, if these guys did indeed get into the store and charging after the owner, I can't see a reasonable jury anywhere convicting the owner. Original reports made it sound like they may have (a) not been armed and (b) not even gained entry into the store. And under those circumstances a reasonable person could construct an "excessive use of force" scenario. But again, if they did in fact get into the store and were charging the owner, pop pop, see ya.
<< <i>I am saying he had a very valid reason to be in the shop the time he was there. >>
I'm not getting the objection some seem to have with the guy being in his store when it wasn't open. It's HIS FREAKING STORE, for crying out loud- why does he *need* a reason?
<< <i>
<< <i>I am saying he had a very valid reason to be in the shop the time he was there. >>
I'm not getting the objection some seem to have with the guy being in his store when it wasn't open. It's HIS FREAKING STORE, for crying out loud- why does he *need* a reason? >>
That's back on page 4 or 5 I think.
<< <i>I'm not getting the objection some seem to have with the guy being in his store when it wasn't open. It's HIS FREAKING STORE, for crying out loud- why does he *need* a reason? >>
The ONLY reason it might matter is because he was burglarized fairly recently, so some may think he was "laying in wait" to get payback at the next people who would try to rob him overnight. IF that is suspected as a motivation it could be bad for him since it would show some premeditation, as if he was "waiting" and hoping someone would come so he could pop them.
(I don't believe that, but I don't know, and considering what lawyers will portray in could, it IS a potential issue.)
Again, please don't misinterpret opinions of what the law WILL do with what we think they SHOULD do. I think we're getting into some trouble in this thread because of the lack of drawing that distinction.
<< <i>
<< <i>I am saying he had a very valid reason to be in the shop the time he was there. >>
I'm not getting the objection some seem to have with the guy being in his store when it wasn't open. It's HIS FREAKING STORE, for crying out loud- why does he *need* a reason? >>
i don't know about you guys but i work in IT and i know a lot of people
who work in the wee hours and enjoy that time of night. i used to
go grocery shopping at 3 AM at the 24 hour stores because it was
so quiet and peaceful. I would stay up late and get my work done
while customers are sleeping.
I also know many business owners who think nothing of getting up
and going to work late at night forgetting something they need to
do.
To me it is not odd at all.
<< <i>i don't know about you guys but i work in IT and i know a lot of people
who work in the wee hours and enjoy that time of night. >>
It's certainly a good time to get a lot of work done without interruptions.
<< <i>I think we're getting into some trouble in this thread because of the lack of drawing that distinction. >>
That and some posters failing to see that another poster can put out food for thought without necessarily believing every aspect of it.
<< <i>And under those circumstances a reasonable person could construct an "excessive use of force" scenario. >>
Yep, that's true, and I'd probably construct such a scenario in my mind, but if it came to trial and I was a juror, I'd never admit it, and I'd guarantee there would be no guilty verdict, even if I believe the owner was "lying in wait".
I guess I am not such a good Christian, yet I still profess to be Christian anyway. I'm still working on the 'good' part, though I doubt I'll ever master it (actually, I know that I won't) while I am still living.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I am saying he had a very valid reason to be in the shop the time he was there. >>
I'm not getting the objection some seem to have with the guy being in his store when it wasn't open. It's HIS FREAKING STORE, for crying out loud- why does he *need* a reason? >>
i don't know about you guys but i work in IT and i know a lot of people
who work in the wee hours and enjoy that time of night. i used to
go grocery shopping at 3 AM at the 24 hour stores because it was
so quiet and peaceful. I would stay up late and get my work done
while customers are sleeping.
I also know many business owners who think nothing of getting up
and going to work late at night forgetting something they need to
do.
To me it is not odd at all. >>
I understand that and agree with you up to the point of him having previously being robbed and choosing to be there alone at four in the morning- six hours prior to opening.
I would like to know if the burglary back in April was done during or after store hours.
<< <i>Yep, that's true, and I'd probably construct such a scenario in my mind, but if it came to trial and I was a juror, I'd never admit it, and I'd guarantee there would be no guilty verdict, even if I believe the owner was "lying in wait". >>
For the sake of argument, assuming one was concerned about being burglarized, how exactly would one go about protecting his store against that without "lying in wait"? Just show up at random times and hope to catch crooks in the act?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I am saying he had a very valid reason to be in the shop the time he was there. >>
I'm not getting the objection some seem to have with the guy being in his store when it wasn't open. It's HIS FREAKING STORE, for crying out loud- why does he *need* a reason? >>
i don't know about you guys but i work in IT and i know a lot of people
who work in the wee hours and enjoy that time of night. i used to
go grocery shopping at 3 AM at the 24 hour stores because it was
so quiet and peaceful. I would stay up late and get my work done
while customers are sleeping.
I also know many business owners who think nothing of getting up
and going to work late at night forgetting something they need to
do.
To me it is not odd at all. >>
I understand that and agree with you up to the point of him having previously being robbed and choosing to be there alone at four in the morning- six hours prior to opening.
I would like to know if the burglary back in April was done during or after store hours. >>
Before hours.
<< <i>
<< <i>I'm having a hard time understanding why this "old man" who had previously been robbed a week or two ago and is in a line of business that is regularly targeted by thieves would be alone in his business at 4 in the morning
Sort of like the woman you goes out drinking alone....she sort of deserves trouble, right?
Dave >>
No, not at all. I'm just wondering if the shop owner was having a hard time separating himself from his business. >>
That should be irrelevant. He wasn't the one trying to rob someone else or destroy their livelihood.
If someone commits a crime, or attempts to, why should others face consequences.
If people would own up to the responsibility of their actions, maybe they would think twice about what they are going to do?
Someone jaywalking should not be hurt.
Someone trying to break into a house/business should expect that they may not survive...packing or not.
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
<< <i>
<< <i>Yep, that's true, and I'd probably construct such a scenario in my mind, but if it came to trial and I was a juror, I'd never admit it, and I'd guarantee there would be no guilty verdict, even if I believe the owner was "lying in wait". >>
For the sake of argument, assuming one was concerned about being burglarized, how exactly would one go about protecting his store against that without "lying in wait"? Just show up at random times and hope to catch crooks in the act? >>
That was mentioned on previous pages as well. Basically- barred windows/doors, alarm system, high end goods kept off-site, paid security patrol, video surveillance, etc.
<< <i>That was mentioned on previous pages as well. Basically- barred windows/doors, alarm system, high end goods kept off-site, paid security patrol, video surveillance, etc. >>
And maybe the owner decided it would be easier to do it himself. Who knows? I'm still not getting why any of the reasoning going into his decision as to how to protect his store is anybody's business but his.
I will admit, though- it's sure a lot easier to second guess peoples' choices after you know the results.
<< <i>
<< <i>I'm not getting the objection some seem to have with the guy being in his store when it wasn't open. It's HIS FREAKING STORE, for crying out loud- why does he *need* a reason? >>
The ONLY reason it might matter is because he was burglarized fairly recently, so some may think he was "laying in wait" to get payback at the next people who would try to rob him overnight. IF that is suspected as a motivation it could be bad for him since it would show some premeditation, as if he was "waiting" and hoping someone would come so he could pop them.
(I don't believe that, but I don't know, and considering what lawyers will portray in could, it IS a potential issue.)
Again, please don't misinterpret opinions of what the law WILL do with what we think they SHOULD do. I think we're getting into some trouble in this thread because of the lack of drawing that distinction. >>
I see your scenario and a lawyer may very well bring that up and he may have to prove that he was there strictly for business reasons. I knew what you were talking about and it will probably be thrown out there that he had been camping there the last few days.
Positive BST Transactions (buyers and sellers): wondercoin, blu62vette, BAJJERFAN, privatecoin, blu62vette, AlanLastufka, privatecoin
#1 1951 Bowman Los Angeles Rams Team Set
#2 1980 Topps Los Angeles Rams Team Set
#8 (and climbing) 1972 Topps Los Angeles Rams Team Set
<< <i>From the Sheriff's release:
Suspect Booked In Connection To Burglary
That Led To Deadly Shooting
On May 18, 2009, at 12:44 p.m., Sheriff’s Homicide detectives booked 21-year-old Sergio Antonio Arauza into the Sacramento County Main Jail. Arauza had been stopped by deputies shortly after a business owner had shot and killed one burglar after he called 911 at 4:16 a.m., to report two masked suspects were breaking into his business. Detectives believe Arauza was the suspect who fled from the scene after his partner was mortally wounded by the business owner.
Arauza was booked (see photo below) on one count of burglary and for violating his probation. He is being held in lieu of $100,500 bail and is scheduled to be arraigned on May 20, 2009, at 1:30 p.m. in Department 62. The investigation into the shooting is ongoing and detectives are attempting to determine if Arauza, and the suspect who was killed, are connected to a series of Sacramento-area business burglaries which had occurred earlier in the morning.
From updated sacbee article
Arauza and his alleged robbery accomplice were believed to have ridden in a maroon Toyota Camry later found outside the shop. The car contained some items that investigators believed were stolen. >>
On probation and was offered Bond.. Let's run to the border and have "Dog" Chapman get his ass. What's the matter with California? Put up $10k and they will never see the man again..
<< <i>I feel for the shop owner being stuck in a gut wrenching decision, but I feel for the person who died. It is sad to think his eternal fate is forever sealed and may have not been packing and may have had no intentions of harming anyone. No one deserves the death penalty for burglary, but on the other hand other would be robbers may be less determined to rob the guy. >>
Actually, I don't feel that bad for the person who died. He had a choice NOT to rob the place. He had a choice NOT to be a crook. Plenty of people don't have good/rich lives but they don't turn to crime to take from others. The guy had a mask on. It was not an attempted crime of opportunity, it was premeditated crime.
As for the death penalty for burglary......it may have turned into assault and battery or worse. We won't know. We won't know what he was willing to do or would have done. One crime could easily turn into the next. 3 strike law makes people do bad things (and I am not against the 3 strikes law). You (nor I) can say what the criminal was willing to do. The shop owner did nothing wrong, imho, and had every right to be in his store WHENEVER he wanted, and to protect it with lethal force. It wasn't like some kid was spray painting the sidewalk and got shot.
<< <i> All I know is if you keep getting robbed and you're in a bad part of town then why not move the shop? >>
Why should he have to move? We don't know how good his business was, how much he had vested in the location/setup, how much a new location would be, his commute, etc.
Also, what is wrong with respectable businesses being in "bad part of town"? How do you think they get better?
Why should RESPECTABLE LAW-ABIDING folks always have to move aside for criminals? Screw that!
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
<< <i>
<< <i>If the robber was shot in the front I suspect the store owner will be o.k. and no charges filed. The body
being found in the parking lot does not help the shop owners case. >>
He was shot inside the store then ran out with the other robber. >>
A wound to the upper body does not cause immediate death. Had the bullet nicked an artery enough to cause a rupture, death might be imminent but still not be immediate.
Simply being shot would definitely cause an adrenaline spurt which would elevate the burglars blood pressure which would hasten the loss of blood, either internally or externally but death would still not be immediate. There would still be plenty of time left to run from the store and make it into the parking lot before his body realized the mortality of the wound. At that point conciousness could have been lost, followed by death. It was already stated that the other robber stopped to try and help his cohort. This tells me that there may have been enough life left in the body that the cohort felt he could render assistance in the retreat.
Immediate death is much different then imminent death and can cover a lot of different scenarios. For example, a head wound which causes immediate unconciousness appears like immediate death but is more than likely imminent death without regaining conciousness. There are cases on record where even a guillotine did not cause immediate death which is one of the reason the practice was dropped.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I'm having a hard time understanding why this "old man" who had previously been robbed a week or two ago and is in a line of business that is regularly targeted by thieves would be alone in his business at 4 in the morning
Sort of like the woman you goes out drinking alone....she sort of deserves trouble, right?
Dave >>
No, not at all. I'm just wondering if the shop owner was having a hard time separating himself from his business. >>
That should be irrelevant. He wasn't the one trying to rob someone else or destroy their livelihood.
If someone commits a crime, or attempts to, why should others face consequences.
If people would own up to the responsibility of their actions, maybe they would think twice about what they are going to do?
Someone jaywalking should not be hurt.
Someone trying to break into a house/business should expect that they may not survive...packing or not. >>
in the end our opinion doesn't matter. The law is drawn up on facts, not opinions and the law may say he wasn't justified.
Positive BST Transactions (buyers and sellers): wondercoin, blu62vette, BAJJERFAN, privatecoin, blu62vette, AlanLastufka, privatecoin
#1 1951 Bowman Los Angeles Rams Team Set
#2 1980 Topps Los Angeles Rams Team Set
#8 (and climbing) 1972 Topps Los Angeles Rams Team Set
<< <i>
<< <i>I feel for the shop owner being stuck in a gut wrenching decision, but I feel for the person who died. It is sad to think his eternal fate is forever sealed and may have not been packing and may have had no intentions of harming anyone. No one deserves the death penalty for burglary, but on the other hand other would be robbers may be less determined to rob the guy. All I know is if you keep getting robbed and you're in a bad part of town then why not move the shop?Text
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I totally disagree with the above statement. When a burglar takes the risk of robbing someone or someplace, he automatically had decided to put his life in peril. It is his actions, and his actions, alone that have sealed his eternal fate. I, for one, applaud the owner for being at his place of business and attempting to protect it and possibly, his own life too. It is unfortunate that laws in this land have become so liberalized that the owner could possibly face criminal charges for such as the above (and I hope he does not). It is these types of laws that can make a society so civilized that such a society ultimately rots from the inside and a new society has to be created. IMHO. >>
so deciding to steal someone is grounds for eternal hell? Not in my book. Once again I feel for a shop owner for having to make a decision, but no one deserves death for theft/burglary. >>
BBN....you are to be commended for how nice you are.
Question....has anyone ever stolen from you? Broken into your home or a business you owned while you were there?
Have you ever been alone and threatened, or felt you were threatened, by a masked man (or more than one), in the wee hours of the morning (or even daylight)?
I think you must be the best church goer at your church and/or you have lived a great life and never had anything to fear or family to fear for. Good for you. Not all of us are so lucky.
I work hard for what I have and it isn't right if someone tries to steal it from me. If they do, I don't care what happens to them. Eternal or not. If they try to threaten me or my family (or our home), then I do care what happens to them....and I hope it IS eternal and everlasting.
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
<< <i>Basically- barred windows/doors, alarm system, high end goods kept off-site, paid security patrol, video surveillance, etc. >>
Gee, you are so nice!!! I honestly never expected a forum member to be so generous and pay for all those things, and for someone he doesn't even know! You've single-handedly restored my faith in mankind.
How about letting me partake of your generosity as well? I have a whole lot of securty items I'd just love to use in order to protect myself and my family. Send me a PM and tell me where I can pick up the cash, please!
That is unless you are suggesting that in order to prevent himself from being robbed into poverty, he should fork over huge sums of money to protect his property, which he may have to sell in order to pay for the privilege of not having to fire a gun.
Naw! You couldn't mean that.
Oh, and I could use an armed security guard as well, so please don't make any plans after you get off work. I can't afford to pay a living wage, you understand, so I will be once again subscribing to your generous offer for the hours from 8:00 pm to 8:00 am Monday through Sunday, except for maybe around Christmas time.
Golly gee! Thank you from the bottom of my heart. I look forward to your PM!
In the meantime...
SHOOT 'EM!!! SHOOT 'EM GOOD!!!
You had better act fast, or the next guy that dies as a result of me not having the security you suggest will be all your fault. If that thought keeps you up at night, then so much the better, since I want my Security Guard wide awake at all times.
<< <i>The law is drawn up on facts, not opinions and the law may say he wasn't justified. >>
Won't make a whit of difference what the law says if there is juror nullification, and if I am on the jury, that is what would happen, guaranteed.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I feel for the shop owner being stuck in a gut wrenching decision, but I feel for the person who died. It is sad to think his eternal fate is forever sealed and may have not been packing and may have had no intentions of harming anyone. No one deserves the death penalty for burglary, but on the other hand other would be robbers may be less determined to rob the guy. All I know is if you keep getting robbed and you're in a bad part of town then why not move the shop?Text
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I totally disagree with the above statement. When a burglar takes the risk of robbing someone or someplace, he automatically had decided to put his life in peril. It is his actions, and his actions, alone that have sealed his eternal fate. I, for one, applaud the owner for being at his place of business and attempting to protect it and possibly, his own life too. It is unfortunate that laws in this land have become so liberalized that the owner could possibly face criminal charges for such as the above (and I hope he does not). It is these types of laws that can make a society so civilized that such a society ultimately rots from the inside and a new society has to be created. IMHO. >>
so deciding to steal someone is grounds for eternal hell? Not in my book. Once again I feel for a shop owner for having to make a decision, but no one deserves death for theft/burglary. >>
BBN....you are to be commended for how nice you are.
Question....has anyone ever stolen from you? Broken into your home or a business you owned while you were there?
Have you ever been alone and threatened, or felt you were threatened, by a masked man (or more than one), in the wee hours of the morning (or even daylight)?
I think you must be the best church goer at your church and/or you have lived a great life and never had anything to fear or family to fear for. Good for you. Not all of us are so lucky.
I work hard for what I have and it isn't right if someone tries to steal it from me. If they do, I don't care what happens to them. Eternal or not. If they try to threaten me or my family (or our home), then I do care what happens to them....and I hope it IS eternal and everlasting. >>
I'm not disagreeing with you or defending some losers. I know many people have selectively ignored that I said that I felt for the store owner for having to make that decision. If someone broke into my home, yes, I would feel threatened enough to probably shoot, but if some say they would not be affected by someone dying from their gunshot then they're a liar. I have never once pinned the blame on the owner. I just believe that many of my fellow conservatives like to plaster "bleeding heart lefty" too easily on anyone who may slightly disagree with them. Christians can't win either way. Either we're lebeled "holier than thou" or hypocrites. Once again I don't know why one can't understand a shop owners actions yet feel bad that someone has to die.
Think here. Trying to physically harm ones family and trying to steal your coins in the dead of night in what they thought would be an unoccupied store are two VERY different things. If someone can't tell the differnt between round metal and their kids then they need help.
Last of all, my life is good. It wasn't always as I almost lost mine last August due to an aortic dissection. I was lukewarm and living not the greatest. I walked that egde of life and almost lost mine to eternal damnation and would have had I not survived that dissection. I guess I'm speaking as someone who almost became an eternally lost one and it's shameful that anyone has to lose theirs without making ammends with God. The robber made that decision to put his life in that situation. I hope he made ammends with God before he slipped away from this Earth
Positive BST Transactions (buyers and sellers): wondercoin, blu62vette, BAJJERFAN, privatecoin, blu62vette, AlanLastufka, privatecoin
#1 1951 Bowman Los Angeles Rams Team Set
#2 1980 Topps Los Angeles Rams Team Set
#8 (and climbing) 1972 Topps Los Angeles Rams Team Set
<< <i>IloiloKano, reading the linked news articles as well as the thread in it's entirety would benefit you greatly. >>
Okay, I'll stop now.
<< <i>I totally disagree with the above statement. When a burglar takes the risk of robbing someone or someplace, he automatically had decided to put his life in peril. It is his actions, and his actions, alone that have sealed his eternal fate. I, for one, applaud the owner for being at his place of business and attempting to protect it and possibly, his own life too. It is unfortunate that laws in this land have become so liberalized that the owner could possibly face criminal charges for such as the above (and I hope he does not). It is these types of laws that can make a society so civilized that such a society ultimately rots from the inside and a new society has to be created. IMHO. >>
<< <i>BBN....you are to be commended for how nice you are.
Question....has anyone ever stolen from you? Broken into your home or a business you owned while you were there?
Have you ever been alone and threatened, or felt you were threatened, by a masked man (or more than one), in the wee hours of the morning (or even daylight)?
I think you must be the best church goer at your church and/or you have lived a great life and never had anything to fear or family to fear for. Good for you. Not all of us are so lucky.
I work hard for what I have and it isn't right if someone tries to steal it from me. If they do, I don't care what happens to them. Eternal or not. If they try to threaten me or my family (or our home), then I do care what happens to them....and I hope it IS eternal and everlasting. >>
I agree with both of these statements.