[spartazoo]

Originally Posted by 65Mark

If guns kill people, do pencils misspell words?

Great analogy!

[wytnyt]

obviously a gun cant act alone
nor can bombs,nukes,or bio weapons but you dont see them for sale in stores
same should go for guns

[se428bandit]

Originally Posted by wytnyt

obviously a gun cant act alone
nor can bombs,nukes,or bio weapons but you dont see them for sale in stores
same should go for guns

The guy was a POS who was just released from jail robbing another store. The Kroger employee did the world and taxpayers a favor.

[JimsSixtySix]

nor can bombs,nukes,or bio weapons but you dont see them for sale in stores


What country do you live in?? I'm sure you can buy all these in US as well as other countries...

[PonchoV8]

Originally Posted by wytnyt

obviously a gun cant act alone
nor can bombs,nukes,or bio weapons but you dont see them for sale in stores
same should go for guns

And what happens when criminals who own guns are set loose on the honest citizens who can't buy one at a store?

[JimsSixtySix]

BTW did anyone hear about that other turdhead in Ft.Wayne that chopped up that girl...... I say .. take him out, break every major bone in his body,legs,arms, and leave him there to starve. POS...

[wytnyt]

Originally Posted by se428bandit

The guy was a POS who was just released from jail robbing another store. The Kroger employee did the world and taxpayers a favor.

i dont disagree with that,only that the wrong person did it
what if he had missed and hit another
or what if this was his first bad thing he had ever done wrong,does this warrant a death penalty?

[wytnyt]

Originally Posted by JimsSixtySix

nor can bombs,nukes,or bio weapons but you dont see them for sale in stores


What country do you live in?? I'm sure you can buy all these in US as well as other countries...

like guns are?....no

[SRR]

Originally Posted by wytnyt

i don't disagree with that,only that the wrong person did it
what if he had missed and hit another
or what if this was his first bad thing he had ever done wrong,does this warrant a death penalty?

The ARMED robber decided he didn't want to leaver any witnesses? What if, what if? Sounds to me like it was gun verse gun. Robber lost.

[wytnyt]

Originally Posted by PonchoV8

And what happens when criminals who own guns are set loose on the honest citizens who can't buy one at a store?

if there were no guns,,,,then

[PonchoV8]

I saw that Star Trek episode too. It was a heavenly world where evil didn't exist.
If I'm attacked by someone with a knife, I want to tatoo a red dot betwixed his eyes----by pulling a trigger.
I want to instruct him on the virtues of trepanation.

[wytnyt]

Originally Posted by SRR

The ARMED robber decided he didn't want to leaver any witnesses? What if, what if? Sounds to me like it was gun verse gun. Robber lost.

how do you know this?


Police said early information indicates that Atkinson was suspected of placing a hard object into the back of a female employee in the store in the 5000 block of West 71st Street, near Georgetown Road.

a hard object could have been but
the employee shot without even knowing if there was a gun

[wytnyt]

Originally Posted by PonchoV8

I saw that Star Trek episode too. It was a heavenly world where evil didn't exist.
If I'm attacked by someone with a knife, I want to tatoo a red dot betwixed his eyes----by pulling a trigger.
I want to instruct him on the virtues of trepanation.

i dont disgree on guns but they should protect the home only
if everyone had guns the world would be chaotic

[PonchoV8]

There's a crazy person in Arizona that got one.
But we shouldn't be able to buy them at the store? Then where?

[arrowem]

I pretty much never get into "personal belief" matches because you can never convince the other side they are wrong
but what I do like to do is point out some irony

wytnyt- you seem to think that "guns" should be eliminated so this kind of thing can't happen (either criminals with guns or normal people with guns), yet your avatar seems to have a huge sword that can ONLY be used for killing. just saying'
And don't get me started on blaming people with guns when alcohol is legal and all the problems that causes. (you can use the alcohol argument for a lot of issues). Don't worry I'm not against alcohol (far from it some days)it's just that peoples arguments for banning things or blaming things usually can be debased with the alcohol (or tobacco for that matter) argument.

but back on subject- it seems that the hero thought saving lives was worth facing the consequences of his actions. It's in all of our minds now days with mass shootings happening-what if, what if I was in that situation......with a gun- I would have shot.

Anyone who threatens to have a gun has a gun as far as I'm concerned.

[400 4spd.]

Originally Posted by Deadhead

Even in VA, the most pro-gun state in the Union, this guy could be convicted of murder. In order to shoot someone this way you must be in mortal danger yourself. At least here.

It is conceivable that if he asserted that he was in the act of arresting the guy or apprehending him while he was committing a felony he could get away with it, but as a civilian outside your home you are typically not permitted to shoot people who do not pose an immediate threat to your life.

Just sayin' know what the laws in your state are before you get all cowboy like that.

Robbing a Kroger WTF anyway?

I agree, so here you go, Virginians. See I A. through F. and IV A.


A Summary of Virginia Firearms Laws

I.

DEFINITION OF SELF DEFENSE

A. Self defense is a law of necessity.
B. The amount of force used in self defense must be reasonable under the circumstances.
C. Deadly force cannot be used in self defense unless there is a reasonable fear that the person is in danger of being killed or suffering great bodily harm.
D. Deadly force is most often defined as using a deadly weapon (see section V, Malice), but hands and fists can be deadly weapons when they are repeatedly used against an unresisting or incapacitated person.
E. Self defense is viewed from the mind of the person acting in self defense. (ie. Does this person have a reasonable fear of some harm that justifies his acting in self defense.).
F. Two types of self defense:

Justifiable (no fault) and Excusable (partly to blame for the conflict).
G. The general self defense jury instruction:

THE COURT INSTRUCTS THE JURY THAT

the amount of force used in self-defense must be reasonable in relation to the harm threatened, and that the defendant is not allowed to use deadly force in self- defense unless he reasonably feared, under the circumstances as they appeared to him, that he was in danger of being killed or that he was in danger of great bodily harm.

II. JUSTIFIABLE SELF DEFENSE

A. Justifiable self defense occurs where you are not at fault for creating the situation that leads you to use self defense. (example: you are approached by a stranger on the street who pulls out a knife and threatens to kill you if you do not give him your money).
B. No "retreat to the wall" required when the self defense is justified. You may stand your ground and defend yourself.
C. Same principles of self defense from section I apply. (ie., amount of force used must be reasonable, etc.).
D.

Jury instruction:

THE COURT INSTRUCTS THE JURY THAT if you believe that the defendant

was without fault in provoking or bringing on the difficulty, and that the defendant reasonably feared, under the circumstances as they appeared to him, that he was in danger of harm, then the defendant had the right to use such force as was reasonably necessary to protect himself from the threatened harm. If you further believe that the defendant used no more force that was reasonably necessary to protect himself from the threatened harm, then you shall find the defendant not guilty.

III. EXCUSABLE SELF DEFENSE

A. Excusable self defense occurs when you are partly to blame for the conflict which causes you to use self defense. (example. You get mad at a man and hit him with your fist in a parking lot. He goes to his car, pulls out a knife, and comes back towards you threatening to kill you.)
B. You must first cease any assault you are committing.
C. You must declare that you desire peace.
D. You must "retreat to the wall" and do everything possible to avoid having to defend yourself.

E. If you cannot retreat and are forced to defend yourself, then the same principles of self defense from section I apply. (ie., amount of force used must be reasonable, etc.).

G.

Jury instruction:

THE COURT INSTRUCTS THE JURY THAT if the evidence showed the defendant was to some degree at fault in provoking or bringing on the difficulty, and if you further find that when attacked:
1. He retreated as far as he safely could under the circumstances;
2. In a good faith attempt to abandon the fight;
3. Made known his desire for peace by word or act;
4. He reasonably feared, under the circumstances as they appeared to him, that he was in danger of bodily harm; and
5. He used no more force that was reasonably necessary to protect himself from the threatened harm, then you shall find the defendant not guilty.

IV. DEFENSE OF OTHERS

A Self defense applies to the defense of others.
B. Force used to defend others must be reasonable under the circumstances.
C. Deadly force cannot be used to defend others unless you reasonably fear that the person you are defending is in danger of being killed or suffering great bodily harm.
D. Defense of others is viewed from the mind of the person acting to defend another. When defending another, you must reasonably believe that the person you are defending is a faultless victim of the assault you are defending against.
E.

Case law:

Thus, under the majority view, in order to justifiably defend another, the defendant must reasonably believe that the person being defended was free from fault; whether the defended person was, in fact, free from fault is legally irrelevant to the defense in those jurisdictions.

This view is based on the principle that one should not be convicted of a crime for attempting to protect one whom he or she perceives to be a faultless victim from a violent assault. Under this approach, the policy of the law is to encourage individuals to come to the aid of perceived victims of assault. We find this position to be well-grounded in principle and policy. Accordingly, we hold that the law pertaining to defense of others is that one may avail himself or herself of the defense only where he or she reasonably believes, based on the attendant circumstances, that the person defended is without fault in provoking the fray. Foster v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 380, 386, 412 S.E.2d 198, ___ (1991)

V. MALICE

A. There can be no self defense when the person acts with malice.
B. Malice can be inferred from the deliberate use of a firearm or other deadly weapon in an unjustified attack.
C. Malice is an essential element of murder.
D. Note that self defense (in cases where the judge or jury believes the defendant truly acted in self defense) does constitute a "legal excuse or justification" under the first of the two instructions that follow in this section.
E.

Jury Instructions:

THE COURT INSTRUCTS THE JURY THAT malice is the state of mind which results in the

intentional doing of a wrongful act to another without legal excuse or justification, at a time when the mind of the actor is under the control of reason. Malice may result from any unlawful or unjustifiable motive including anger, hatred or revenge. Malice may be inferred from any deliberate willful and cruel act against another, however sudden.
THE COURT INSTRUCTS THE JURY THAT you may infer malice from the deliberate use of a deadly weapon unless, from all the evidence, you have a reasonable doubt as to whether malice existed. A deadly weapon is any object or instrument, not part of the human body, that is likely to cause death or great bodily injury because of the manner and under the circumstances in which it is used.

VI. RIGHT TO ARM

A. A person who reasonably fears that he will suffer serious bodily harm from an imminent attack has the right to arm himself for his self defense.
B. No malice will be inferred from the mere fact that the defendant armed himself under these circumstances.
C.

Jury instruction:

The Court instructs the jury that when a person reasonably apprehends that another intends to attack him for the purpose of doing him serious bodily harm, then such person has the right to arm himself for his own necessary self defense and if he has reasonable grounds to believe that an attack will be made upon him then no inference of malice can be drawn from the fact of such preparation.



Indiana law is similar in regard to use of lethal force in defense of an innocent third party. I'll bet if the employee is a lawful (under Indiana law) gun owner, he won't be charged.

[PonchoV8]

You're allowed to raise the level of retaliation one level above the threat. If you're a female, you are typically allowed to raise it 2 levels above the threat. Maybe not in your state.

[sleepy]

Originally Posted by wytnyt

if there were no guns,,,,then

The bad guys would use a knife, brick, pipe, bat, hammer, broken bottle or any of a thousand things that CAN be used to kill.
IF,IF,IF what IF it was your child-wife this dirt bag was threatening? Would you do anything you could to stop him? Or would you just stand there and piss your pants?
Judging by your posts I think you would do the second.

[3tas4me]

Originally Posted by wytnyt

if there were no guns,,,,then

It has already been proven over and over that places with the strictest gun laws tend to have the highest crime (Washington DC).

[RAJ7395]

An ex-girlfriend of mine worked as a under cover security guard at a grocery store. She watched the monitors to catch shop lifters, and checkers that were stealing money/items.

Does anyone know if this guy was a security guard?



So.. Gun pressed in the back of a faultless victim, protected a faultless victim from a violent assault (armed robbery), and shot and killed the perpetrator during the commission of the felony.

Pulling out the following: I'd say he acted within the established framework of the law.

IV. Defense of others

D. Defense of others is viewed from the mind of the person acting to defend another. When defending another, you must reasonably believe that the person you are defending is a faultless victim of the assault you are defending against.

This view is based on the principle that one should not be convicted of a crime for attempting to protect one whom he or she perceives to be a faultless victim from a violent assault.