Owner fights back, kills robber [Archive]

Nigelcorn

March 9, 2007, 07:56 PM

I really am not happy that the would be robber had to die for his stupid mistake, but I think that the actions of the owner probably did more to prevent crime in that area than anything else could have. I wonder how much crime would go down in this country if every store owner and responsible citizen were as prepared as the restaurant owner in this story. It doesn't seem like it would take very long before criminals would be VERY afraid to commit the crimes that now they have no fear of.

Invicta

March 9, 2007, 08:07 PM

good the hear that the headline didnt read "robbers kill owner".

badbob

March 9, 2007, 08:16 PM

I really am not happy that the would be robber had to die for his stupid mistake

When you park your car on a hill, don't set the emergency brake, and it rolls away, it's a "stupid mistake". When you try to pull an armed robbery, and the would-be victim kills you, it's justice. I'm not "happy" the robber died, but I'm not grieving either.

badbob

Smokin Joe

March 9, 2007, 08:36 PM

TOTALLY AWESOME !

I for one am happy that robber is dead. one less to worry about.

those robbers are idiots indeed. what kind of loot will there be at 6:30 AM ? was he trying to rob himself a free breakfast ?

HuntAndFish

March 9, 2007, 09:08 PM

one less to worry about.

+1 Smoking Joe. That's one goblin who will not be threating to kill anyone else.

Topthis

March 9, 2007, 09:22 PM

The thing that sucks here is that this Lee fella might now become a target of the "homies", not of robberies, but of revenge. It sucks that folks have to defend themselves from animals in the first place...but then to have to fear for revenge is over the top.

Tbag

March 9, 2007, 09:32 PM

God Bless Him!

revjen45

March 9, 2007, 09:40 PM

Good shooting!! If the BG's mama didn't want to bury her worthless sack of wasted protoplasm she should have taught him better. The law says the assailant is responsible for his choice of a victim, and I nominate these clowns for a Darwin Award.

JohnKSa

March 9, 2007, 09:47 PM

Some lessons I see...

If you are involved in a violent confrontation in public, count on being photographed or even videotaped. What you say, what you do, and how you act will be presented to the police--perhaps at your trial. Video and photographs make a strong impression on juries. Shouting epithets at your attackers (as some trainers recommend) or making racial comments, etc. will not help your case.

How you act AFTER the shooting is very important. The owner clearly stopped using deadly force as soon as it was no longer necessary but kept his concentration on the potential threat. Notice that the Inspector uses the victim's actions after the shooting as justification that he responded properly. ""It gives us an indication that the owner came out and didn't do anything but hold the suspect until police arrived," Fox said."

It doesn't hurt to be known as a pleasant and reasonable person. "Miles' daughter, Brandi Miles, 18, who knows Lee only by his first name, said: "He was easy to get along with - always smiling. I don't know why someone would do this.""

Smokin Joe

March 10, 2007, 01:21 AM

I wont worry about his baggy pants homies.

figure, if they were such good homies, they would have been there to help him out in the first place. Figure they were too lazy to even do that, ...

poortrader

March 10, 2007, 07:33 AM

I moved to Philly a couple of years ago. I have lived in many places, NYC, Las Vegas, the South, and the Midwest. I can say that I have never seen any place like Philly. Philadelphia has this really weird and dangerous characteristic to it.

When I was younger, my dad had a diner in a not so nice section of Atlanta.
He always kept a Colt Police Positive .38 under the counter by the cash register. I glad that he never had to use it.

All I can say is: One for the Good Guy.

banditt007

March 11, 2007, 01:08 AM

poortrader, what kind of noted differences are you seeing in philly compared to the other places?

inkie

March 11, 2007, 01:12 AM

The Philly TV news said this owner was robbed twice before and he used his weapon in those robberies and I believe he shot those bad guys too. If I was in his shoes I would have packed it in after the 1st robbery.
They interviewed him and this was his story. The guy he shot was holding a gun to a women cashier who was so nervous she could not open the register. The robber was counting to 10 before he was going to shoot her so the gunowners wife stepped in an opened the register, the owner saw he was distracted pulled the gun from under the counter shot the guy in the head and put two slugs in the accomplice. As John Ksa said, he said the right words because he kept repeating: He was going to shoot the cashier and probably my wife.

CraigJS

March 11, 2007, 11:10 AM

Whens the last time you heard the term "pegged" when talking about shooting? :confused:
Where I come from pegged is more a baseball term.. Oh well.
GG's 2 - BG's 0
Be safe.

4V50 Gary

March 11, 2007, 11:39 AM

Somewhere is a cell-phone video of the owner stepping outside, stepping on the fleeing suspect and holding him at gunpoint. The surviving robber should be charged with felony murder. After all, his accomplice was killed in the course of a violent felony.

Jedi-Jurist

March 11, 2007, 12:00 PM

Score one for the good guys. This is one BG who won't go on to kill/rape/rob anyone else. As has been already noted, if everyone reacted to armed violence as this storeowner did, we would certainly have a lot less violence, if not just for the fact there would be a lot less BG's running around.

Jedi-Jurist

March 11, 2007, 12:06 PM

Here's the cell phone video and interview with Mr. Lee:

http://cbs3.com/local/local_story_067074554.html

Smokin Joe

March 11, 2007, 12:39 PM

You know what ?

If that diner isnt too far off my way when I go to philly tomorrow, I'll go look for him, tell him I heard the news, that I'm a firearms owner from, new york city and thought he did a WONDERFUL and BRAVE thing, and shake the good man's hand !

and make a purchase of food too while I am there... gotta support this guy !

Jedi-Jurist

March 11, 2007, 12:55 PM

JoshB

March 11, 2007, 01:08 PM

+1 for Mr. Lee. Next time I go through Philly I'll have to stop in and have breakfast. We need more Americans like this one!

45Marlin carbine

March 11, 2007, 02:16 PM

a point to consider is the fact that some lawsuits have been filed against citizens using guns to defend against BG's who were shot but not killed - so the thing to do is shoot to kill when facing an armed threat - and save the taxpayers $$ from having the BG go thru criminal court and jail time also. sort of like when facing a home invasion threat, don't let 'em get outside your home.

JohnKSa

March 11, 2007, 02:44 PM

so the thing to do is shoot to kill when facing an armed threatThis has been covered in some depth.

From a legal standpoint the law doesn't give you permission to kill attackers, it gives you the right to use deadly force when there is no other reasonable alternative. Should that use of deadly force result in the death of the attacker, then you are within the law. The law says you can use deadly force, it doesn't say you have permission to kill. The death of the attacker (should that be the outcome) is merely a possible legal "side-effect" of the legal use of deadly force.

From a moral standpoint, killing someone to avoid a possible lawsuit does not put you on high ground.

From a tactical standpoint, you shoot to stop the attack--that's what gives you the best chances of surviving. The best way to do that reliably is to shoot at the middle of the largest target presented unless there are extenuating circumstances. I could see taking a head shot on a close, non-moving attacker who has a gun pointed at someone else. But the justification would be that there is no other reasonable way to disable the criminal before he shoots--not because you wanted to kill him. In general you aim for the center of mass. FWIW, a center of mass shot has a good potential for being lethal, but that's just the way the cookie crumbles, so to speak.

From a general common sense standpoint, it's probably not wise to announce in public that your goal in using a firearm for self-defense is to kill someone. An otherwise squeaky clean case could turn ugly if it someone can supply proof (in the form of your own words) that your goal was to kill the attacker when it should have been to defend yourself and others. What was clear before could become muddied--was the last shot justified or was it simply a desire by the shooter to end the attackers life even after the attack had ended?

Smokin Joe

March 11, 2007, 02:56 PM

bird in one hand, donut in another,

deadly force is force in which is so that death can be a result. usually using a deadly weapon, knife, gun, baton, etc.

so if you are allowed deadly force, it means you are allowed to kill him to stop the threat. what is what deadly force means.

many a cops use flashlights to beat their subjects instead of the baton due to "deadly force" requirements, where a 6 cell D Maglite flashlight isnt a deadly weapon but the baton is. though end results are the same.

It has been said, the only really quick way to totally incapacitate a human is to kill him with a bullet.

If I am faced with a either him or me situation, you bet I'm gonna empty that mag into the adversary, and reload and empty it again so long as he still holds the weapon or is still standing. I'll do all I can do to stop the threat.

Of course if one shot and he falls and the gun is out of his hands then I'm not gonna shoot him anymore, unless he reaches for his pocket or something where another weapon might be...

WIN71

March 11, 2007, 03:36 PM

many a cops use flashlights to beat their subjects instead of the baton due to "deadly force" requirements, where a 6 cell D Maglite flashlight isnt a deadly weapon but the baton is. though end results are the same.

A profound statement. One I've never heard before. You obviously have a rare insight into police training and procedures.

BloodyBucket03

March 11, 2007, 03:45 PM

Awesome!! One less scum bag the tax payer of Pennsylvania has to pay to house in The Department of Correction. Yeah “You just saved yourself $33,000 dollars a year how do you feel?" :)

JohnKSa

March 11, 2007, 05:16 PM

so if you are allowed deadly force, it means you are allowed to kill him to stop the threat. what is what deadly force means.You are allowed to use deadly force to stop an attack with the understanding that death may result. That is not the same thing as saying that you are "allowed to kill him to stop the threat". Death is a permissible side effect of the use of deadly force, it is not the intent. I'm not familiar with the deadly force statutes of ALL the states, but I've poked through a few of them. I have yet to see a law that says you can kill to stop an attack. They all deal with the use of deadly force, not the prognosis of the attacker.

Your goal is to stop the attack, not to kill the attacker, and certainly not to minimize your chances of being sued by killing the attacker....where a 6 cell D Maglite flashlight isnt a deadly weapon...If you hit someone with a 6 cell D maglite, it is a deadly weapon. It may not carry the same stigma as hitting someone with a baton, but the courts will not make allowances because you injure someone with a makeshift weapon vs one that is expressly intended to be a weapon.It has been said, the only really quick way to totally incapacitate a human is to kill him with a bullet.Many things "have been said". That is one of the things that "has been said" but is false.If I am faced with a either him or me situation, you bet I'm gonna empty that mag into the adversary, and reload and empty it again so long as he still holds the weapon or is still standing. I'll do all I can do to stop the threat. You're allowed to keep using deadly force until the threat stops. At that point you must legally stop too, regardless of your assessment of your chances of being sued.

stephen426

March 11, 2007, 05:37 PM

Poor guys... Why did Mr. Lee have to shoot them in the head instead of wounding them in the leg... :p :D :barf: Just kidding. I'm sure that what those two scumbags' families will say though. I can't say I have any pity for them. They very well might have forced everyone in the cooler after they robbed them and executed them. The reaped what they sowed. Justice.

Socrates

March 11, 2007, 06:33 PM

John has a point. With a guy counting to ten, threatening to shoot the cashier, or going to shoot the cashier, shooting him in the head is justified, and, also, an excellent tactic if you can make the shot. It reduces the threat to one person, and, removes, by 50%, the chance of either wife, cashier, waitress, or bystander being shot in the crossfire. The owner was actually using the 'defense of others' part of self-defense, justifying use of deadly force. If in the same position as the person you are trying to protect, you would be justified in using deadly force, then another may use deadly force to protect you. This is common law, usually the basis for most state's laws.
Having a gun pointed at your head, and someone counting to ten, prior to shooting you, certainly justifies deadly force, except, perhaps in Kalifornia.

One of the police was reported to have said he was justified in using force to protect his property. THAT, AS A GENERAL RULE, IS NOT TRUE. Only Louisiana has laws to that effect, and, it appears the judicial and police systems don't enforce the laws of Louisiana, except as they please.

You can't worry about the civil lawsuits. Remember, in civil law, the less damage done, the less can be sued for.
If you kill someone, then their potential life earnings can be sued for by their family. I was almost killed by a doctor, and surgery, and, that was only worth 14k, because I'm still alive.

What I really like about this guy was his restraint after the shooting, and, not making the mistake of shooting to stop the fleeing felon. VERY level headed, in a dangerous situation, and, for someone who may not have been raised here, shows an excellent understanding of the legal system.

S

kennybs plbg

March 11, 2007, 09:26 PM

One of the police was reported to have said he was justified in using force to protect his property. THAT, AS A GENERAL RULE, IS NOT TRUE. Only Louisiana has laws to that effect, and, it appears the judicial and police systems don't enforce the laws of Louisiana, except as they please.

Not smart to start painting everything with the same brush. You are way off base here. New York State Penal Law allows the same, as I'm sure many other states do also.

kenny b

Mikeyboy

March 11, 2007, 10:20 PM

I moved to Philly a couple of years ago. I have lived in many places, NYC, Las Vegas, the South, and the Midwest. I can say that I have never seen any place like Philly. Philadelphia has this really weird and dangerous characteristic to it.

poortrader, what kind of noted differences are you seeing in philly compared to the other places?

Bandit...I was born and raised in Philly, and I think what poortrader is seeing is with the exception of the liberal, elite, yuppie and upper income types, Philadelphians are know for being tough, foul mouthed, violent people. Look at our sports fans, Eagles fans booed and throw snowballs at Santa, Jimmie Johnson and the Dallas Cowboys. Even old, blue collar, white women are bad *** so unfortunately our street criminals are real bad.

I brung this up a few times and got lip on this forum but Philly has a real bad illegal gun problem. There are a lot of guns in the hands of street criminals. Also due to city government mismanagement and corruption good, regular people are fleeing the city (my family included), and the bad people from the really bad neighborhoods are spreading throughout the city like a cancer. 20 years ago Philly was a tough town, but still filled with some nice people and great things, now it just dangerous.

I have lived in NJ and the NYC area, and been in some rough towns around the world, but for some reason when I go into Philly, even into my old neighborhood, I'm always watching and always carrying. While I did have some fond memories, for the most part I hate Philly and what it has become.

Smokin Joe

March 11, 2007, 11:24 PM

If you hit someone with a 6 cell D maglite, it is a deadly weapon. It may not carry the same stigma as hitting someone with a baton, but the courts will not make allowances because you injure someone with a makeshift weapon vs one that is expressly intended to be a weapon.

NOT what I was saying. the police must use force with regulation.

to strike someone with a baton IS DEADLY FORCE. a baton is a DEADLY WEAPON.

you cant strike a person with your baton till you are allowed to use deadly force. something you can be in trouble for.

Even if I tap you with the baton, it is deadly force. because it is a deadly weapon.

I can tap you with the flashlight all day long, which is not deadly force.

its just regulations. did you know it is illegal for a civilian to have this baton here in NYC? but a civillian can have a broomstick made of the same material and be of the same dimentions.

its all regulations. ( taught to me by the new york state division of criminal justice services or something like that many years ago,)

You are allowed to use deadly force to stop an attack with the understanding that death may result. That is not the same thing as saying that you are "allowed to kill him to stop the threat". Death is a permissible side effect of the use of deadly force, it is not the intent.

I would like to expand on this with :

Deadly force MEANS force that would MOST LIKELY kill the person. ( not just MAY kill the person ) hence the usage of the word "deadly"

JohnKSa

March 11, 2007, 11:40 PM

did you know it is illegal for a civilian to have this baton here in NYC? but a civillian can have a broomstick made of the same material and be of the same dimentions.Somewhat similar laws here. "Clubs" are illegal weapons in TX and carrying one is the same as carrying a handgun without a carry permit. Carrying a flashlight is legal. However, once you start hitting someone with either one, it makes no difference from a legal standpoint which one you're using.Deadly force MEANS force that would MOST LIKELY kill the person. ( not just MAY kill the person ) hence the usage of the word "deadly""Deadly Force" is usually defined in the statutes. In TX, it means: force that is intended or known by the actor to cause, or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing, death or serious bodily injury.

In TX, at least, the definition makes it clear that the weapon (specific method of application of deadly force) is irrelevant. It's also clear that the TX deadly force encompasses force which need not be capable of causing death. Even it if only causes serious bodily injury, TX law still considers it to be deadly force.

Interestingly enough, it doesn't even have to be CAPABLE of causing serious bodily injury as long as the actor INTENDS it to cause serious bodily injury. Examples of that would be if a person tried to poison another using a substance he incorrectly believed to be toxic or if a person tried to shoot someone with a gun that turned out to be inoperable or unloaded.

Smokin Joe

March 11, 2007, 11:53 PM

well, in texas, a steak is a deadly weapon... :)

Even it if only causes serious bodily injury

well, yeah, but whatever can cause such serious bodily injury, also can cause death.

I dont know of any action that causes only serious bodily injury that dosent carry a good chance at death as well...

Like.

Interestingly enough, it doesn't even have to be CAPABLE of causing serious bodily injury as long as the actor INTENDS it to cause serious bodily injury...

If I repeatly smash a "sponge bob square pants" stuffed plush toy over your head, while INTENDING to bash your brain in, ..... it isnt deadly force..... There is no way in high heaven that doing so would be deadly force... no waaaaayyyy..

http://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/0/5/7/1/2/1/webimg/38431785_o.jpg

JohnKSa

March 12, 2007, 12:06 AM

Sorry, I edited my post to add the last sentence after you replied.

Smokin Joe

March 12, 2007, 12:12 AM

Examples of that would be if a person tried to poison another using a substance he incorrectly believed to be toxic or if a person tried to shoot someone with a gun that turned out to be inoperable or unloaded.

that would be in the same boat as how if you use a FAKE GUN to commit a robbery it would still be as if you had used a real gun and etc....

Listen, I dont know, I wish I knew all the laws but I dont. I do know, that if I bash you in the head with a sponge bob stuffed toy, all the while shouting DIE YOU @#$%@$#% DIEEEEE !!!!! it wont be deadly physical force. I'd prob be sentenced to a mental facility.

kennybs plbg

March 12, 2007, 01:01 AM

There is a difference in NY. There is any force necessery short of deadly force to stop a crime and then there is deadly force. For NY being such a liberal state it is very clear where the line is drawn. The self defense laws are very much in favor of the citizens, giving them many rights in self defense and in stopping crime.

kenny b

kennybs plbg

March 12, 2007, 01:06 AM

Joe I'm surprised you don't know 35 by heart living in the state. I don't see how anyone could carry a firearm and not have it memorized, thats crazy.

kenny b

Smokin Joe

March 12, 2007, 01:39 AM

Joe I'm surprised you don't know 35 by heart living in the state.

"35 by heart" sounds like a country song.

I don't see how anyone could carry a firearm and not have it memorized, thats crazy.

well that makes perfect sense then. I dont carry.

kennybs plbg

March 12, 2007, 01:59 AM

"35 by heart" sounds like a country song.

Not really a country song but it might stop you from singing the blues someday.

Article 35 NYS Penal Code

http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/structureny.htm

kenny b

stephen426

March 12, 2007, 10:41 AM

If I repeatly smash a "sponge bob square pants" stuffed plush toy over your head, while INTENDING to bash your brain in, ..... it isnt deadly force..... There is no way in high heaven that doing so would be deadly force... no waaaaayyyy..

Now if you used Sponge Bob to smother someone, I guess it could be considered a deadly weapon. We could even increase the lethality of Sponge Bob by removing the original stuffing and filling it with rocks. That way, it could be used as a much more effective impact weapon! :eek: :D :p

revjen45

March 12, 2007, 07:04 PM

"One of the police was reported to have said he was justified in using force to protect his property. THAT, AS A GENERAL RULE, IS NOT TRUE. Only Louisiana has laws to that effect, and, it appears the judicial and police systems don't enforce the laws of Louisiana, except as they please."

Not quite correct- in TX you can use deadly force to protect property after dark. That doesn't necessarily make it a good idea because the Persecuting Shysters there abuse power as you describe happening in LA.