2013 America (and Friends!) Gun Violence Thread No Plows Allowed!

[Melena]

Blubb going by the article and exactly what Moss quoted, he did not know they were armed till they pulled a gun on him and he shot him. If you are going to claim vigilantism (which means he was outright looking for people to stop instead of wandering in on) get your fucking facts straight.

[Blubbartron]

Blubb going by the article and exactly what Moss quoted, he did not know they were armed till they pulled a gun on him and he shot him. If you are going to claim vigilantism (which means he was outright looking for people to stop instead of wandering in on) get your fucking facts straight.

I'm getting the impression that while you're hurling insults at me left and right, you're the one that actually failed to read the article. It's plain English.

Two masked men armed with guns burst inside the store Monday afternoon. They were met by a man described by officials as a "concerned citizen," who witnessed the robbery in progress.

"He saw the first suspect with his arms extended, holding a large revolver, and he looked and saw a second suspect, also with his arms extended," said Sgt. John Solecki, Reading Police Dept.

He knew both of them were armed.

[djzombie]

so a good guy with a gun stops two bad guys with guns from robbing some place? whats the problem with this?

sorry but if you're willing to commit armed robbery you should expect that you might possibly could end up getting shot as a result of that robbery

[Drex]

he should have waited for the "authorities" to arrive so they could detain the store-owner and anal probe him under sedation for 8 hours

good riddance

[Moss]

so a good guy with a gun stops two bad guys with guns from robbing some place? whats the problem with this?

sorry but if you're willing to commit armed robbery you should expect that you might possibly could end up getting shot as a result of that robbery

because I don't trust average joe gun owner to be able discern what situations merit "citizens arrest" with a loaded gun

[BaneTheBrawler]

If you're trying to equate this guy to Zimmerman, they're worlds apart.

I'm not equating anything. I'm stating a fact. Specifically, a fact that is relevant to the post directly above mine:

The problem is he caused the confrontation in the first place.

As I said, well established precedent means that this isn't actually a problem.

[Blubbartron]

As I said, well established precedent means that this isn't actually a problem.

I don't tend to consider following at a distance to be directly confrontational in the way that pointing a gun at someone and ordering them to stop is. You might be able to make the argument, but it's substantially thinner than "well-established precedent."

[Tajin]

lol

[Nephlite]

The problem is while the article might -imply- the citizen knew the two were armed, it doesn't say weather or not he actually confronted the subjects with his own gun drawn. There aren't enough details to show what exactly transpired and that's all the difference between vigilante justice and defending himself. The way I read it is he sees the robbery go down, sits outside and calls 911, the subjects come out of the store and spot him, he tries to stop them, they point their weapons at him and he pulls out and fires.

After extensively investigating the incident, police determined the private citizen, whose name has not been released, acted within the law when he tried to stop the two suspects from fleeing the convenience store. Adams said the private citizen demanded that they stop and wait for police. He said when the robbers refused and pulled out their guns, the citizen shot them in self-defense. "He needed to defend himself because if he would not have used force, he himself may have suffered the wrath of those two gun-toting robbers," said Adams. Adams said he does not condone violence on the streets of Reading, but the man did what he had to do to protect himself.

Unless there's something I'm missing specifically with the way the article is written, I don't see how the reporter even knew that much of the situation without talking with an investigator or the shooter. I'm thinking they pieced together what they could and filled in the blanks. I wanna see the video.

Also you guys are looking too much in to this whole citizens arrest thing. If you look at the scope of what a police officer does, it's essentially a citizens arrest with the power to officially charge someone with a crime. Regular citizens can and have issued citations for civil offenses, it's just not enforced by the scope of the government without more (or way more) government intervention. Generally a citizen is held to the same standard of a police officer where they have to have reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed to make a stop, and probable cause to arrest. Yes, if someone isn't free to leave you can technically say they're under arrest but that's only when the government is acting on a citizen, not a citizen on a citizen. There's no expectation that the citizen is acting as an agent of the government; it's essentially a "good will" or "well intentioned" stop of an individual.

In this case, his intervention could have very well cost him his life. There's people like that in the world. That's why there are hero's and people who are committed to being victims. Yes, merely picking up the phone and calling is acting. There's people in the world who don't even do that. They look the other way and live in their bubble content with the world the way it is. Till someone steps forward and makes the move, it'll never end. Policing starts with every day people, not just the cops. Without people stepping up, the world will forever be in turmoil. Not sure if anyone is aware but there's not enough cops in the world to enforce every law and catch every badguy.

Suppose these two got away? Next person who gets in their way gets shot and without someone stepping in and the reactive nature of current day law enforcement, there's a very good chance they get away and we have another cold case for the freezer. Then what? Who's next? How many more people have to die? Stats show it starts with something like Armed Robbery before a perp graduates to homicide. It's only a matter of time.

[Blubbartron]

I appreciate the reasoned response Nephlite. I'll grant you, it doesn't specify whether he approached the two men with his own gun drawn or not. However, I think it's incredibly unlikely that someone who knows at least one of the robbers is armed (says one guy had arms extended, holding a large revolver, other guy was just "arms extended", so maybe he didn't see a 2nd gun) would approach them without having his gun pointed at them. I mean really, that would take an utter moron.

The writer of the article was apparently getting information from a sergeant and the DA, since they're quoted by name and title.

Also, if the laws on the books are as liberally interpreted as I read them, people executing a citizen's arrest are completely within their "rights" to physically detain someone that they are arresting. It's not just asking them politely not to go anywhere. It's literally an arrest (the temporary suspension of liberty of a citizen). The thing I'm not sure of is whether or not a person who "resists arrest" from an ordinary citizen is committing a crime in the same way you are if you resist arrest by a police officer.

[Brill Weave]

I was going to chime in on this but then I realized nothing of value was lost, so I didn't care.

[Nephlite]

I appreciate the reasoned response Nephlite. I'll grant you, it doesn't specify whether he approached the two men with his own gun drawn or not. However, I think it's incredibly unlikely that someone who knows at least one of the robbers is armed (says one guy had arms extended, holding a large revolver, other guy was just "arms extended", so maybe he didn't see a 2nd gun) would approach them without having his gun pointed at them. I mean really, that would take an utter moron.

The writer of the article was apparently getting information from a sergeant and the DA, since they're quoted by name and title.

Also, if the laws on the books are as liberally interpreted as I read them, people executing a citizen's arrest are completely within their "rights" to physically detain someone that they are arresting. It's not just asking them politely not to go anywhere. It's literally an arrest (the temporary suspension of liberty of a citizen). The thing I'm not sure of is whether or not a person who "resists arrest" from an ordinary citizen is committing a crime in the same way you are if you resist arrest by a police officer.

Yeah he would be an idiot to approach them, however, the article specified that they drew their guns out on him when he confronted them. Maybe he didn't realize they were armed? This is quite possible since (believe it or not) most suspected "robbers" aren't armed.

A lot of "quotes" the media allegedly get from people are usually misquoted or like I said, pieced together information that is pretty much up for interpretation and it leaves the listener up to interpret the rest. One of our spokesmen in our department was in the academy with me and they tell me all the time that the chief makes them give open-ended answers that don't really answer the questions, just make people feel better. Had to laugh at that.

Reporter: "Do you have someone in custody?"
Spokesman: "We have a person of interest right now."
Reporter: "Do you know if this person committed the robbery?"
Spokesman: "We can't say for sure but we're looking at this person as a potential suspect."
BREAKING NEWS: "DC Police Capture alleged serial robber!"

The problem with a citizen's arrest is the person isn't acting under the authority of the government. When a Police Officer arrests you, it's the police acting as an agent of the government and enforcing some type of law the government has on the books. The biggest thing is the Police Officer is acting under the color of law, to which average Joe Blow citizen does not have such authority, merely just doing what he or she thinks is right. There are very specific things an ordinary citizen can arrest for like in-progress misdemeanor crimes of violence and felonies, but not civil violations or violations of law that doesn't impact the quality of life of others (i.e. driving under a suspended license or possession of a fake I.D., which you can get arrested for).

Immunity is another big thing. If a Police Officer arrests you and makes a mistake (shocker that it happens), then they are protected by the government from certain things (mistaken identity) and are protected by Good Faith Law. A citizen who messes up and makes an illegal arrest is basically kidnapping another person. Violations of civil liberties is a big recourse here for illegally detained subjects (and rightfully so). It's kind of a fucked up standard that the police, who are trained and taught how to make a legal arrest, are granted immunity for mistakes, yet the average citizen who doesn't have the training and classroom experience in these matters can be held liable for violations and SEVERELY punished (last I checked, kidnapping across the board is a Class A Felony that can get you the death sentence).

So technically, resisting a "citizen's arrest"... well, there's no such thing. In most cases it'll probably be an assault against the "arresting" citizen and go from there. It's only resisting if you try to resist a government agent.

[Moss]

The problem is while the article might -imply- the citizen knew the two were armed, it doesn't say weather or not he actually confronted the subjects with his own gun drawn. There aren't enough details to show what exactly transpired and that's all the difference between vigilante justice and defending himself. The way I read it is he sees the robbery go down, sits outside and calls 911, the subjects come out of the store and spot him, he tries to stop them, they point their weapons at him and he pulls out and fires.

If he knew they were armed, and it says he saw them with guns drawn holding up the store attendant, it doesn't matter to me if he approached them with gun drawn or not. By stopping them he is inviting a shootout since there are very few criminals that would agree to stop and be taken to jail just because some unarmed civilian tells them to.

In this case, his intervention could have very well cost him his life. There's people like that in the world. That's why there are hero's and people who are committed to being victims. Yes, merely picking up the phone and calling is acting. There's people in the world who don't even do that. They look the other way and live in their bubble content with the world the way it is. Till someone steps forward and makes the move, it'll never end. Policing starts with every day people, not just the cops. Without people stepping up, the world will forever be in turmoil. Not sure if anyone is aware but there's not enough cops in the world to enforce every law and catch every badguy.

Intervening to stop some robbers from stealing a few hundred dollars and some potato chips when you KNOW doing so will likely escalate to a shootout isn't heroic, it's fucking idiotic. Much of this is a strawman and irrelevant to this argument. We are looking at this one specific incident. I'm not saying people should never step in to stop crime, that would be silly.

Suppose these two got away? Next person who gets in their way gets shot and without someone stepping in and the reactive nature of current day law enforcement, there's a very good chance they get away and we have another cold case for the freezer. Then what? Who's next? How many more people have to die? Stats show it starts with something like Armed Robbery before a perp graduates to homicide. It's only a matter of time.

Using this logic we should kill all thieves before they graduate to homicidal maniac. It's only a matter of time!

[Moss]

Yeah he would be an idiot to approach them, however, the article specified that they drew their guns out on him when he confronted them. Maybe he didn't realize they were armed? This is quite possible since (believe it or not) most suspected "robbers" aren't armed.

"He saw the first suspect with his arms extended, holding a large revolver, and he looked and saw a second suspect, also with his arms extended," said Sgt. John Solecki, Reading Police Dept.

.

[Nephlite]

The different accounts of the article then contradict themselves as the same article said the guys pulled out on the citizen and he returned fire. Need the video.

[Moss]

read it again.

guy is in convenience store, witnesses robbers pull out weapons and hold up cashier.

he then stops them as they try to leave after they stow their weapons. when he tries to stop them, they pull guns out and he pulls his gun out to defend himself.

[AidenCarby]

Gunman on Yale campus, reports saying it's a confirmed carrier.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...r-at-yale?lite

[ringthree]

Gunman on Yale campus, reports saying it's a confirmed carrier.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...r-at-yale?lite

A long rifle? That isn't even trying in this day and age.

[Callisto]

http://news.yahoo.com/newtown-sandy-...210616237.html

Police report re: Sandy Hook released, the important part being that GTA and CoD were the wrong games to ban:

The report also details Adam Lanza's interests at length: including playing violent and non-violent video games, target shooting with his mother and building computers. One of his most time consuming hobbies was playing "Dance, Dance Revolution," which he played for four to ten hours at a local theater nearly every weekend.

[Kohan]

DDR doesn't have a fucking comma in its name. Shit reporters. God.