What is better, no guns, or more guns?

[3rdnlng]

6 hours ago, B-Man said:

Virginia Clerk Is Locked Up for Shooting at 3 Masked Robbers in His Store. Not a Typo.

 

 

A Virginia store clerk heard a crash that sounded like a car had crashed into the place at 4:30 a.m. on Sunday. He grabbed a gun and shot at three masked men he found stealing merchandise and cash from the shop.

 

When it was over, the clerk was the one in handcuffs. He now sits in jail on no bail, charged with crimes for which he could be locked up for 20 years. Those charges include: "Malicious Wounding, Reckless Handling of a Firearm and Violation of a Protective Order."

 

Police say they'll get around to charging the robbers later.

What's wrong with this picture?

The police incident report says that this is what got 33-year-old Hamzeh Abushariah sent to jail,

 

The preliminary investigation indicates that three subjects forced entry into a business and began stealing cash and merchandise. An employee inside a secure back room heard the break in, retrieved a firearm, opened the door to the sales floor and discharged the weapon, striking one juvenile subject. The employee retreated to the back room but reentered the sales floor and discharged his weapon again as the subjects were attempting to flee the business.

 

Abushariah, who was staying at the shop because his Washington, D.C., apartment complex had several coronavirus cases, apparently shot the suspects (who turned out to be juveniles) as they fled. That's what police say.

 

 

The clerk also had a "protective order" against him, which may prevent him from possessing a gun. Are Arlington prosecutors now claiming that a person with a protective order may not defend himself against three masked thugs who crashed their way into a store and began ransacking it?

 

A couple of defense attorneys weighed in on Twitter:

 

 

 

 

@Koko78 Watcha think?

[Koko78]

26 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

@Koko78 Watcha think?

 

Interesting facts. There are a few issues here. I can use NY law as examples, but I know absolutely nothing about VA law.

 

Since the building was occupied, he would be justified under NY law. Here is the model jury instruction for using deadly force to prevent a burglary:

 

Quote

Under our law, a person in possession or control of [or licensed or privileged to be in] a dwelling [or an occupied building],who reasonably believes that another individual is committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling [or occupied building], may use deadly physical force upon that individual when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of such burglary.

 

Since he was being allowed to stay there, he can be said to be licensed or privileged to occupy that building. The fact that there were people living in an apartment upstairs from the story is pretty clear evidence that it was an 'occupied building'.

 

The Order of Protection is a separate issue, and here has a possibility of being  (and I'll use the technical legal term here) fu.cked. If he was subject to a restraining order, especially if it were related to domestic violence, then he is absolutely prohibited from owning or possessing any firearm. This is under both state and federal law (especially if DV-related).

 

He has a colorable argument (again, under NY law) under a general justification defense (aka 'choice of evils' defense):

 

Quote

Under our law, conduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal when such conduct is necessary as an emergency measure to avoid an imminent public or private injury which is about to occur by reason of a situation occasioned or developed through no fault of the actor. That imminent public or private injury must be of such gravity that, according to ordinary standards of intelligence and morality, the desirability and urgency of avoiding such injury clearly outweigh the desirability of avoiding the injury sought to be prevented by the statute defining the charged crime(s).

 

He's got an interesting issue as to whether or not using deadly force is reasonable as 'an emergency measure' to prevent looting the store. Not sure how that would play out (and I'm not interested enough to research it.)

 

If the Order of Protection was due to domestic violence, I do not know what would happen if the feds wanted to take a bite out of his ass. They take that stuff pretty seriously, and the federal system is not anywhere near what you might call kind and gentle to defendants.

[/dev/null]

15 hours ago, B-Man said:

The employee retreated to the back room but reentered the sales floor and discharged his weapon again as the subjects were attempting to flee the business.

 

 

 

Key sentence

 

The clerk retreated to a position of safety and returned to confront the assailants.  The assailants were attempting to flee the scene and no longer a physical threat to the clerk.

[Doc Brown]

16 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

The article doesn't say whether the robbers were armed.  Hard to make a judgment based off that article.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

41 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

The article doesn't say whether the robbers were armed.  Hard to make a judgment based off that article.

I agree there may be more to the story, but I’m not sure what the bad guys being armed has to do with it.  Seems to me working backwards, the idea is the clerk had three legal options:

 

1. Ask the thieves to leave in a loud, but firm voice.  No profanity allowed;

2.  Remain huddled in the “secure” room in the store, which ironically, was within the larger secured smoke shop before the thieves breached the premises.  One can assume the thieves would honor the sanctity of that second secured room, because cash and valuables are always kept in the first area breached;

3. Flee the premises, because the “juvenile suspects”  effectively controlled it, and there could never, ever be any additional suspects at any other entrance/exit, and everyone knows it.

 

Finally, everyone knows if you ask a guy/guys if they are armed as they break into your store, it’s common courtesy for them to reply honestly, and absent firearms, there is literally no harm that can befall you when three young men break into your store.  
 

For what it’s worth, I’m not a gun owner, I own a business and I would take my chances leaving through the back door/window  if possible and sensible.  I encourage my employees to do the same. I can always get more stuff. I would not, however, shelter in place at 430am with the hope that the three criminals would give me a fair shake if I had another option involving a firearm, knife, hand grenade or machete. The nature of criminals is that they tend to view crime in a favorable light.  I’d assume it was them or me, probably because my only real option would be the machete. 

[Joe Miner]

1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I agree there may be more to the story, but I’m not sure what the bad guys being armed has to do with it.  Seems to me working backwards, the idea is the clerk had three legal options:

 

1. Ask the thieves to leave in a loud, but firm voice.  No profanity allowed;

2.  Remain huddled in the “secure” room in the store, which ironically, was within the larger secured smoke shop before the thieves breached the premises.  One can assume the thieves would honor the sanctity of that second secured room, because cash and valuables are always kept in the first area breached;

3. Flee the premises, because the “juvenile suspects”  effectively controlled it, and there could never, ever be any additional suspects at any other entrance/exit, and everyone knows it.

 

Finally, everyone knows if you ask a guy/guys if they are armed as they break into your store, it’s common courtesy for them to reply honestly, and absent firearms, there is literally no harm that can befall you when three young men break into your store.  
 

For what it’s worth, I’m not a gun owner, I own a business and I would take my chances leaving through the back door/window  if possible and sensible.  I encourage my employees to do the same. I can always get more stuff. I would not, however, shelter in place at 430am with the hope that the three criminals would give me a fair shake if I had another option involving a firearm, knife, hand grenade or machete. The nature of criminals is that they tend to view crime in a favorable light.  I’d assume it was them or me, probably because my only real option would be the machete. 

 

 

If this is what you have on hand, you are more than adequately armed

 

[MILFHUNTER#518]

11 hours ago, Koko78 said:

 

Interesting facts. There are a few issues here. I can use NY law as examples, but I know absolutely nothing about VA law.

 

Since the building was occupied, he would be justified under NY law. Here is the model jury instruction for using deadly force to prevent a burglary:

 

 

Since he was being allowed to stay there, he can be said to be licensed or privileged to occupy that building. The fact that there were people living in an apartment upstairs from the story is pretty clear evidence that it was an 'occupied building'.

 

The Order of Protection is a separate issue, and here has a possibility of being  (and I'll use the technical legal term here) fu.cked. If he was subject to a restraining order, especially if it were related to domestic violence, then he is absolutely prohibited from owning or possessing any firearm. This is under both state and federal law (especially if DV-related).

 

He has a colorable argument (again, under NY law) under a general justification defense (aka 'choice of evils' defense):

 

 

He's got an interesting issue as to whether or not using deadly force is reasonable as 'an emergency measure' to prevent looting the store. Not sure how that would play out (and I'm not interested enough to research it.)

 

If the Order of Protection was due to domestic violence, I do not know what would happen if the feds wanted to take a bite out of his ass. They take that stuff pretty seriously, and the federal system is not anywhere near what you might call kind and gentle to defendants.

Interesting,  in every self defense class I have taken pertaining to the use of deadly force under NY law (I have probably racked up about 30+ hours) the bottom line has always been there is no stand your ground law in general in NYS OUTSIDE  of your dwelling, meaning you have a duty to retreat if you are an unrestricted conceal carry permit holder, and you can only use deadly force if you have exhausted all other means of de-escalation and retreat AND you feel your life is being endangered. 

 

Under our law, a person in possession or control of [orlicensed or privileged to be in] a dwelling [or an occupiedbuilding],who reasonably believes that another individualis committing or attempting to commit a burglary of suchdwelling [or occupied building], may use deadly physicalforce upon that individual when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of such burglary.

If you are in your OWN DWELLING, however, you have NO  duty to retreat. It is a scaled down Castle Doctrine. However, in all the training and instruction I have seen, you CANNOT use deadly force on an unarmed burglar trying to steal your TV from your living room, for instance. Only if he presents himself as about to use deadly force on you. That above jury instruction is very much to the contrary.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

22 minutes ago, Joe Miner said:

 

 

If this is what you have on hand, you are more than adequately armed

 

Then I am prepared.

 

I look a lot like this guy, too if this guy looked less choppy-uppy and more like a homely CPA going to a meeting at the Marriott for a seminar on recent changes to Employer Sponsored Retirement Plans. 

[Koko78]

27 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Then I am prepared.

 

I look a lot like this guy, too if this guy looked less choppy-uppy and more like a homely CPA going to a meeting at the Marriott for a seminar on recent changes to Employer Sponsored Retirement Plans. 

 

You, sir, are no Machete.

[3rdnlng]

10 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

You, sir, are no Machete.

Yes, but he does cut me up sometimes. 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

WHAT’S THIS, LIBERALS BUYING FIREARMS? 

 

Bearing Arms’ Cam Edwards reports those crowds at gun dealers aren’t made up entirely of heat-packing GOPers.

 

 

 

 

.

[Chandemonium]

3 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

WHAT’S THIS, LIBERALS BUYING FIREARMS? 

 

Bearing Arms’ Cam Edwards reports those crowds at gun dealers aren’t made up entirely of heat-packing GOPers.

 

 

 

 

.

Of course. People who were already prepared had no reason to panic buy. 
 

 

...and this is why the second amendment is so important, particularly in times of crisis:

 

Filipino president tells police and military to shoot civilians dead for violating coronavirus lockdown

[/dev/null]

38 minutes ago, Chandemonium said:

Of course. People who were already prepared had no reason to panic buy.

 

But it's still an excuse to buy something

 

[Kevbeau]

6 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

WHAT’S THIS, LIBERALS BUYING FIREARMS? 

 

Bearing Arms’ Cam Edwards reports those crowds at gun dealers aren’t made up entirely of heat-packing GOPers.

 

 

 

 

.

Sample size of one but was picking up a .22LR plinker two weeks ago (had special ordered it in Feb.) Store was packed and my cursory glance at how folks were handling the merchandise and staring at ammo specs, lead me to believe that there were many first time buyers.

[bdutton]

I am all set with guns and ammo for the foreseeable future.  I learned my lesson when Obama got elected.  I have a modest selection of rifles and pistols and an ammo and reloading stock pile that would make most ATF agents get nervous.

[B-Man]

 

YES. NEXT QUESTION? 

 

Are Anti-Gunners Exploiting COVID-19 Outbreak To Trample The 2nd Amendment?

 

 

 

.

[Q-baby!]

On 4/3/2020 at 11:34 PM, bdutton said:

I am all set with guns and ammo for the foreseeable future.  I learned my lesson when Obama got elected.  I have a modest selection of rifles and pistols and an ammo and reloading stock pile that would make most ATF agents get nervous.

What was this lesson you learned? 

[bdutton]

8 hours ago, Q-baby! said:

What was this lesson you learned? 

Stockpile when no one else is.

[Nanker]

On 3/22/2020 at 2:49 PM, Chandemonium said:

I’m not sure about CA law, but federally and in most states black powder muzzleloaders including cap and ball revolvers like this are not legally considered firearms, can be purchased by anyone over 18 without a background check, and are legal for convicted felons to own. He may have earned himself a night in jail by being honest about  something that isn’t actually a crime.

A guy in my gun club in NJ had one of those black powder revolvers. It’s an impressive piece. 
 

In NJ it is considered a firearm. So I suspect it is in California as well. In fact, in NJ air rifles and pellet guns are considered firearms and you must get a Firearm Purchase ID Card and a separate pistol purchase permit for each handgun. 

[B-Man]