Yea it will get dismissed eventually, but in the meantime the victim is being held in jail without bail indefinitely where he will probably catch the communist virus. I’m sure Gov. Blackface will take swift action to fix this.
Shooting a fleeing assailant is asking for legal trouble in any state, as far as I know. And as far as I know from MAG class, following the practice (and legal requirement in some states) of your "duty to retreat" is another good way to stay out of trouble.
The fact that the clerk is locked up, though, now that is super fucked up. But exactly what I'd expect from the Peoples Republic of Arlington.
Stand your ground laws wouldn't have saved this guy. He retreated to a back room after initially shooting at and missing the perps, came back out again, and shot and hit a fleeing perp. I don't necessarily agree with the laws against shooting a fleeing criminal, but it is the law throughout the US, as it neutralizes the "self-defense" justification for shooting somebody.
But even if the law allowed a person to shoot a fleeing perp, this guy still would have been locked up for violating a protective order. I'm not holding my breath waiting for his wife to protest the fact that he's been arrested and held without bail.
Spez II Electric Boogaloo: Oh and as I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, if you carry, please take a course dedicated to CHP legal aspects. Massad Ayoob holds some good ones, if you're interested. Or at the very least purchase the "Gun Laws of All 50 States" book and read it thoroughly.
More than half the states have NO duty to retreat, the rest have only a duty to retreat if not in your dwelling. We are talking about in ones dwelling. The guy was asleep in his store where he lives.
You’re fucking dumb. You linked something that proves what I said.
A few problems here according to laws that I take from this.
shooting at anything that is fleeing means they are no longer a threat (per as).
shooting a "threat" that doesn't have a weapon.
1 is obvious, he's going to jail. You can't shoot at people running away. 2 in my understanding of law he has to fear for his life and see a weapon? Did they have guns? If they had guns, shoot. If you don't see weapons, retreat if you are able. I don't agree with it, but fuck.
This is the typical cuckery you see in Europe. In a tense situation like a robbery, you're supposed to sit there and evaluate whether or not they have a weapon before you can act? It's absolute stupidity.
Not to mention retreating from your own property lol. No, they should retreat. This is the problem when you put individuals in the position of being special snowflakes that are above everything else.
I agree. I feel if a mother fucker ends up in my living room, I should be able to make them Swiss cheese. It's total fucking injustice to tell me I have to retreat from my house when someone breaks in. Maybe they have a gun in their pocket, are a smart theif, and know I can't shoot unless they present it. Total and complete bullshit.
Not to mention the fact that he isn’t supposed to possess a fire arm due to being restrained from someone by way of protective order. We can argue how “fair” that is, but most states nullify your right to bear arms when you have a restraining order successful enforced against you.
He fucked up and that alone will ensure he goes to prison. People are forgetting how important that little detail is. If you can’t legally own a gun, break-in or not, if you fire one, you will be charged as a person not allowed to own a gun
shooting at all, while subject to a protective order which includes a prohibition on possessing firearms
I have no idea why most commenters here are so quick to assume that this guy is an innocent victim of anti-RKBA laws and policies. We don't know what he did to earn the protective order, but while his boss is loudly protesting the arrest, his wife apparently doesn't care to add her voice to the protest.
Because he was shooting attackers, you piece of shit troll. It doesn't matter that his wife is pissed at him. That happens to lots of people. And divorce lawyers always press for the woman to file restraining orders, so that doesn't mean shit about anything he's done. And no orders like that should result in guns being taken away, especially since he needed them for self defense anyway.
Shooting a fleeing assailant is asking for legal trouble in any state
It is indeed. So is shooting anybody under any circumstances, while the shooter is subject to a protective order which includes a prohibition on possessing firearms, which is what happened here.
If the store owner was aware of the protective order, he is also likely to be in a world of legal trouble for providing this guy with a firearm.
In most jurisdictions you don't have the right to defend property with deadly force. This guy is going to prison.
I don't agree with it, but that's been the reality for a long time. Unless you can prove that you had a reasonable fear for your life, you are fucked if you shoot someone, with rare exception.
Even so, Castle Doctrine itself varies by state. We have Castle Doctrine here in Oregon, but it is still a requirement to demonstrate reasonable fear for your life if someone breaks into your home or business. Other states, like California, grant that assumption under their version of Castle Doctrine.
The guy was living at the store, so arguably castle doctrine would apply even if VA didn't extend to business. Anyone is going to have a reasonable fear for their life if they are woken up at 4:30 AM by a bunch of criminals in masks breaking your windows and robbing you so that wouldn't really be an issue. I can't imagine any jury in America finding otherwise.
It's a stupid rationale which ignores the fact that people have to invest time and effort to obtain property. Thieves are literally stealing part of our lives.
I agree. There used to be a better understanding and recognition of that fact, but the modern justice system has swung heavily in favor of the criminals at the expense of the victims. Things are so bad in my area that vigilantism is becoming more common, and it is easy to understand why.
This guy was subject to a protective order, which included a prohibition on possessing firearms. While .win commenters are outraged at his arrest, I rather doubt that his wife feels the same way.
He also retreated to the back room after firing shots, and came back out and fired on, and hit, a fleeing perp. I don't agree with the law against shooting fleeing criminals (there's a societal benefit to preventing them from just proceeding to find another victim, and also to ensuring that they're stopped where police can find and arrest them promptly), but it is the law throughout the US.
Thank you for posting this. The fact that he is restrained by the courts, means he has no legal right to own a gun. Everyone constantly says that the laws in place need to be enforced, and in this case, it is. If you can’t legally own a gun, and you shoot someone, you will definitely be charged with every possible crime associated with illegally possessing, discharging, and injuring someone with a gun.
Yeah, it sucks he got robbed, but he shouldn’t have had the gun in the first place. And he knew that before pulling it out and firing it. He has zero chance of not going to prison for a while.
you actually never have the right to use deadly force to defend only property. deadly force is authorized only when reasonable fear of death or severe bodily injury exists. From what I read about this, the guy ran back into the store to continue shooting at the suspects. I don't blame him and I certainly would be glad burglars get what's coming to them, but unfortunately some states don't see it that way.
I have a feeling this won't go very far, unless the government wants to try and prove that citizens have no right to defend person and property.
Yea it will get dismissed eventually, but in the meantime the victim is being held in jail without bail indefinitely where he will probably catch the communist virus. I’m sure Gov. Blackface will take swift action to fix this.
Shooting a fleeing assailant is asking for legal trouble in any state, as far as I know. And as far as I know from MAG class, following the practice (and legal requirement in some states) of your "duty to retreat" is another good way to stay out of trouble.
The fact that the clerk is locked up, though, now that is super fucked up. But exactly what I'd expect from the Peoples Republic of Arlington.
There is no “duty to retreat” in the United States.
I think you meant to say Florida. I don't know if any other states have stand your ground laws, but most definitely don't.
Most definitely do
Washington California Idaho Utah Oregon etc
Stand your ground laws wouldn't have saved this guy. He retreated to a back room after initially shooting at and missing the perps, came back out again, and shot and hit a fleeing perp. I don't necessarily agree with the laws against shooting a fleeing criminal, but it is the law throughout the US, as it neutralizes the "self-defense" justification for shooting somebody.
But even if the law allowed a person to shoot a fleeing perp, this guy still would have been locked up for violating a protective order. I'm not holding my breath waiting for his wife to protest the fact that he's been arrested and held without bail.
God, you're dumb.
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/blog/what-is-a-duty-to-retreat-law/
Spez: Oh, look here's a list of US States that apparently do not exist in your false reality: https://www.concealedcarry.com/concealed-carry-laws-in-the-united-states/duty-to-retreat/
Spez II Electric Boogaloo: Oh and as I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, if you carry, please take a course dedicated to CHP legal aspects. Massad Ayoob holds some good ones, if you're interested. Or at the very least purchase the "Gun Laws of All 50 States" book and read it thoroughly.
A duty to retreat... only if it's perfectly safe to do so. Pretty easy to get by that
I’m dumb?
More than half the states have NO duty to retreat, the rest have only a duty to retreat if not in your dwelling. We are talking about in ones dwelling. The guy was asleep in his store where he lives.
You’re fucking dumb. You linked something that proves what I said.
Hopefully jury nullification catches on soon
A few problems here according to laws that I take from this.
1 is obvious, he's going to jail. You can't shoot at people running away. 2 in my understanding of law he has to fear for his life and see a weapon? Did they have guns? If they had guns, shoot. If you don't see weapons, retreat if you are able. I don't agree with it, but fuck.
This is the typical cuckery you see in Europe. In a tense situation like a robbery, you're supposed to sit there and evaluate whether or not they have a weapon before you can act? It's absolute stupidity.
Not to mention retreating from your own property lol. No, they should retreat. This is the problem when you put individuals in the position of being special snowflakes that are above everything else.
I agree. I feel if a mother fucker ends up in my living room, I should be able to make them Swiss cheese. It's total fucking injustice to tell me I have to retreat from my house when someone breaks in. Maybe they have a gun in their pocket, are a smart theif, and know I can't shoot unless they present it. Total and complete bullshit.
Not to mention the fact that he isn’t supposed to possess a fire arm due to being restrained from someone by way of protective order. We can argue how “fair” that is, but most states nullify your right to bear arms when you have a restraining order successful enforced against you.
He fucked up and that alone will ensure he goes to prison. People are forgetting how important that little detail is. If you can’t legally own a gun, break-in or not, if you fire one, you will be charged as a person not allowed to own a gun
I have no idea why most commenters here are so quick to assume that this guy is an innocent victim of anti-RKBA laws and policies. We don't know what he did to earn the protective order, but while his boss is loudly protesting the arrest, his wife apparently doesn't care to add her voice to the protest.
End of story, this guy is toast. There is so much working against him.
Because he was shooting attackers, you piece of shit troll. It doesn't matter that his wife is pissed at him. That happens to lots of people. And divorce lawyers always press for the woman to file restraining orders, so that doesn't mean shit about anything he's done. And no orders like that should result in guns being taken away, especially since he needed them for self defense anyway.
It is indeed. So is shooting anybody under any circumstances, while the shooter is subject to a protective order which includes a prohibition on possessing firearms, which is what happened here.
If the store owner was aware of the protective order, he is also likely to be in a world of legal trouble for providing this guy with a firearm.
Yeah, I didn’t even think of that. Geez.
In most jurisdictions you don't have the right to defend property with deadly force. This guy is going to prison.
I don't agree with it, but that's been the reality for a long time. Unless you can prove that you had a reasonable fear for your life, you are fucked if you shoot someone, with rare exception.
Some states (Mine) a place of business is an extension of the castle doctrine, to an extent
Even so, Castle Doctrine itself varies by state. We have Castle Doctrine here in Oregon, but it is still a requirement to demonstrate reasonable fear for your life if someone breaks into your home or business. Other states, like California, grant that assumption under their version of Castle Doctrine.
The guy was living at the store, so arguably castle doctrine would apply even if VA didn't extend to business. Anyone is going to have a reasonable fear for their life if they are woken up at 4:30 AM by a bunch of criminals in masks breaking your windows and robbing you so that wouldn't really be an issue. I can't imagine any jury in America finding otherwise.
No, the intruder had a gun
It's a stupid rationale which ignores the fact that people have to invest time and effort to obtain property. Thieves are literally stealing part of our lives.
I agree. There used to be a better understanding and recognition of that fact, but the modern justice system has swung heavily in favor of the criminals at the expense of the victims. Things are so bad in my area that vigilantism is becoming more common, and it is easy to understand why.
This guy was subject to a protective order, which included a prohibition on possessing firearms. While .win commenters are outraged at his arrest, I rather doubt that his wife feels the same way.
He also retreated to the back room after firing shots, and came back out and fired on, and hit, a fleeing perp. I don't agree with the law against shooting fleeing criminals (there's a societal benefit to preventing them from just proceeding to find another victim, and also to ensuring that they're stopped where police can find and arrest them promptly), but it is the law throughout the US.
Thank you for posting this. The fact that he is restrained by the courts, means he has no legal right to own a gun. Everyone constantly says that the laws in place need to be enforced, and in this case, it is. If you can’t legally own a gun, and you shoot someone, you will definitely be charged with every possible crime associated with illegally possessing, discharging, and injuring someone with a gun.
Yeah, it sucks he got robbed, but he shouldn’t have had the gun in the first place. And he knew that before pulling it out and firing it. He has zero chance of not going to prison for a while.
You two are trolls, working together. Deport!
you actually never have the right to use deadly force to defend only property. deadly force is authorized only when reasonable fear of death or severe bodily injury exists. From what I read about this, the guy ran back into the store to continue shooting at the suspects. I don't blame him and I certainly would be glad burglars get what's coming to them, but unfortunately some states don't see it that way.
depends on the state. In Texas you can. Hell you can use deadly force to defend your neighbor's property.
Texas is solid on this. Don't mess with Texas!