Comments on: Armed Robbery Reported at Virginia Highlands Park

By: Pablo

Pablo — Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:05:51 +0000

So you argument boils down to this: “History shows us gun control is the first step toward the government exterminating its citizens.” Do you actually think that is likely if the US bans assault weapons? If so, you should be living in a cabin in Montana.

By: captain_subtle

captain_subtle — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 20:35:14 +0000

OMG’s got a good point with the whole drawing when drawn upon comment. I’d like to hear a counter argument to this, as I sure can’t think of one. At close range, you’re A.) either both getting shot (quite possibly not the perp), B.) going to suck it up and just get robbed because there isn’t time to draw with a gun in your face, or C.) going to get mad and murder the guy while he’s running away. I guess instead of going for a fatal shot, you could put a bullet in his knee when he’s running, but that’s possibly going to lead to an eventually fatal exchange of fire too, and if a jury sees an exit wound on the front of someone’s body, even in the leg, you’ll have a heck of a time telling them you were acting in self defense.

By: Captain_Obvious

Captain_Obvious — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 16:49:41 +0000

I think it is. I’m sure he thinks the gun makes him more secure, but I don’t carry a gun and I’ve never (knock on wood) been attacked or robbed. And I don’t worry about it, ever. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

By: Douglas Parker

Douglas Parker — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 15:59:43 +0000

I was wondering the same thing.

Presumably, the perp has the advantage of pre-planning, so often times its safe to expect that they’ll have the drop on the victim.

So, armed or not, the victim will more than likely be at the mercy of the perp until the perp is running the other way with whatever they came for.

The victim, gun or no gun, will be at the disadvantage throughout the ordeal. Only able to draw once the threat is no longer clear and present.

By: Wavy Gravy and the Mashed Potatoes

Wavy Gravy and the Mashed Potatoes — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 15:52:41 +0000

1) You plead self defense; basically, the jury decides whether your fear was reasonable (as use of deadly force is almost a given here).

2) You’re in a hell of a lot of trouble. There’s no immediate threat of deadly force once the dude’s fleeing.

By: Miss Manners

Miss Manners — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 15:51:51 +0000

No, you tell them,”We do not receive gestapo before 10 a.m.”.

By: drax

drax — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 15:44:31 +0000

Is that fear unreasonable though? People do get attacked and robbed. The question is whether his fear is irrational, and whether carrying a gun makes him more secure, or not.

By: drax

drax — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 15:43:19 +0000

This post is a joke. Plenty of peaceful, free democracies have gun control too.

I don’t believe we should ban all guns, but your post is not the reason.

By: drax

drax — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 15:41:27 +0000

So much for self-defense.

By: Captain_Obvious

Captain_Obvious — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 15:41:26 +0000

In the first instance, I believe if gun is pointed at you, you’re good to go. You “could” get a manslaughter charge.

In the second, I think that’s no, cause since he is fleeing, you are no longer in danger. That would be murder.