Org Mobile Site
Thread: Don't Mess With Old Marines
In Florida a couple days ago a 71 year old former Marine shot two criminals robbing a subway, killing one, after they robbed the store then tried to force him into the bathroom after getting his wallet.
In short, a clean shoot, the model of why citizens should be allowed to carry concealed guns.
Some News Links:
A Summary
A more in-depth piece.
But what I'm looking for is insight on how other countries would have handled this - in Florida the Marine was never charged, and won't be. He had a permit for carrying a concealed handgun, also.
Would authorities in some countries take issue with his shooting the criminals and charge him with murder?
CR
In short, a clean shoot, the model of why citizens should be allowed to carry concealed guns.
Some News Links:
A Summary
A more in-depth piece.
Originally Posted by :
According to a police statement, :Arrindell ordered Lovell to hand over his wallet. He intentionally dropped it on the floor and refused to pick it up, saying he was afraid. That's when Arrindell ordered him into the women's restroom.
"The victim believed he would be executed and when he noticed [Arrindell] distracted ... reached behind his back, removed his loaded .45 caliber handgun from his holster and fired seven rounds," the statement said.
Arrindell was struck twice — once in the head and once in the stomach — and collapsed. Officers found him face down, wearing sunglasses and a bandanna, with a gun near his left hand. Gadson was hit in the chest and ran from the store. Police dogs found him in the hedges of a nearby office building and bank.
And, as is usual for shootings like this, the criminal's relations come out and said how their kids were turning their lives around, had never harmed any, etc.According to a police statement, :Arrindell ordered Lovell to hand over his wallet. He intentionally dropped it on the floor and refused to pick it up, saying he was afraid. That's when Arrindell ordered him into the women's restroom.
"The victim believed he would be executed and when he noticed [Arrindell] distracted ... reached behind his back, removed his loaded .45 caliber handgun from his holster and fired seven rounds," the statement said.
Arrindell was struck twice — once in the head and once in the stomach — and collapsed. Officers found him face down, wearing sunglasses and a bandanna, with a gun near his left hand. Gadson was hit in the chest and ran from the store. Police dogs found him in the hedges of a nearby office building and bank.
But what I'm looking for is insight on how other countries would have handled this - in Florida the Marine was never charged, and won't be. He had a permit for carrying a concealed handgun, also.
Would authorities in some countries take issue with his shooting the criminals and charge him with murder?
CR
We don't even get those kinds of robberies around here you know. The law's pretty strict on "excessive use of force" though, and concealed carry Right Out far as I know.
And you wouldn't believe how few people get shot here every year, in spite of the country being rotten with guns.
And you wouldn't believe how few people get shot here every year, in spite of the country being rotten with guns.
Originally Posted by :
Would authorities in some countries take issue with his shooting the criminals and charge him with murder?
yes of course they would over here .Would authorities in some countries take issue with his shooting the criminals and charge him with murder?
Well actually no , they might if you shot a robber , then beat them with a stick until you fracture lots of bones including the the skull , then drag them across the road and dump them over a wall , then return to your house for more ammunition and go out and shoot them again just to make sure , but that sort of thing ends with a charge of manslaughter not murder .
Originally Posted by :
We don't even get those kinds of robberies around here you know. The law's pretty strict on "excessive use of force" though, and concealed carry Right Out far as I know.
You're not answering the question. Suppose it did happen.We don't even get those kinds of robberies around here you know. The law's pretty strict on "excessive use of force" though, and concealed carry Right Out far as I know.
Tribesy, what are you referring to?
CR
If, in the UK, you killed someone who was actually in the process of robbing you at gunpoint, I think you'd be ok.
I think you could be charged in Australia, but the sentence would probably be less.
Also you would be charged for carrying a concealed weapon.
Also you would be charged for carrying a concealed weapon.
The gun law in Florida is one can shoot someone if they just feel threatened by them - imagine. So, this ex-Marine will probably be given a medal - justly so.
Seven shots and only hit 'em three times? Sure he was a Marine, not a sailor?
Seven shots and only hit 'em three times? Sure he was a Marine, not a sailor?
Originally Posted by :
Seven shots and only hit 'em three times? Sure he was a Marine, not a sailor?
A 71 year old sailor couldnt even pull the triggerSeven shots and only hit 'em three times? Sure he was a Marine, not a sailor?
Seems to be a lot of stories lately about ex Marines doing these type of things. OOOoooo rah
Originally Posted by :
Tribesy, what are you referring to?
Ah sorry Rabbit I thought you wanted an example of what happens to people in other countries who shoot robbers when you asked...Would authorities in some countries take issue with his shooting the criminals and charge him with murder?Tribesy, what are you referring to?
.
What I am refering to is an example of what happens in this country .
Though of course the example I use is slightly misleading (would you expect any less of me
) .Such a miscarriage of justice is of course open to appeal , at the appeal the manslaughter charge was overturned .
Semper.
And all that. Stupid Jarheads.
Rrr.Kill.
And all that. Stupid Jarheads.
Rrr.Kill.
An unnecessary loss of life. Over what, a few bucks?
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
An unnecessary loss of life. Over what, a few bucks?
An unnecessary loss of life. Over what, a few bucks?
Originally Posted by article:
The victim believed he would be executed
I don't know, but that guy was there and it's usually too late when you can know for sure. I'd say if you rob a store with a gun in your hand, you have to expect to get shot., it's a logical consequence. The victim believed he would be executed
I think here you'd at least be charged for carrying a gun though self defense should be allowed(if in doubt, just carry a throwing axe or so).
Every shooting in New York State, even those by law enforcement, is considered by law to be a homicide till the particulars of the case are brought before a Grand Jury to determine if a possible crime has been committed.
This appears to be a legal case of self-defense as defined in the Penal Code, which includes defense of a third person also; Sec. 53a-19 first paragraph.
Go Devil Dogs!
This appears to be a legal case of self-defense as defined in the Penal Code, which includes defense of a third person also; Sec. 53a-19 first paragraph.
Go Devil Dogs!
Originally Posted by Husar:
I don't know, but that guy was there and it's usually too late when you can know for sure. I'd say if you rob a store with a gun in your hand, you have to expect to get shot., it's a logical consequence.
I think here you'd at least be charged for carrying a gun though self defense should be allowed(if in doubt, just carry a throwing axe or so).
agreed.I don't know, but that guy was there and it's usually too late when you can know for sure. I'd say if you rob a store with a gun in your hand, you have to expect to get shot., it's a logical consequence.
I think here you'd at least be charged for carrying a gun though self defense should be allowed(if in doubt, just carry a throwing axe or so).
Originally Posted by KafirChobee:
Seven shots and only hit 'em three times? Sure he was a Marine, not a sailor?
The old marine probably has double vision so the other 3 shots went into the two illusionary doubles, which means he really missed only once. He's 70, so for that we can cut him some slack. Seven shots and only hit 'em three times? Sure he was a Marine, not a sailor?
Here in Cali, a young Marine got punk'd with his own weapon, when he tried another in a series of armed robberies. The store clerk won't be charged.
Originally Posted by :
...An alleged co-defendant, Navy Corpsman Quintel Antonio Brooks, pleaded not guilty Thursday to participating in four of the robberies on June 10.
Brooks, 19, was a lookout who held a BB gun on store employees and customers while Smith grabbed money from cash registers...
2 ironies reported on the TV last night: the 2 perps where due to rotate (for the first time) to Iraq in November 2007, and one of the store clerks is an Iraqi-American....An alleged co-defendant, Navy Corpsman Quintel Antonio Brooks, pleaded not guilty Thursday to participating in four of the robberies on June 10.
Brooks, 19, was a lookout who held a BB gun on store employees and customers while Smith grabbed money from cash registers...
Well Kukri , it looks like some people will try anything to avoid getting sent to Iraq .
Hehe, Tribesman; funny you said that; the 'comments' section of the local newspaper is full of comments echoing yours - and others decrying the low pay of USMC Lance Corporals, both of which OBVIOUSLY led these young men to pursue a life of crime.
I just wonder if the locals will turn them over to the Corps for prosecution, or run them through civilian court.
I just wonder if the locals will turn them over to the Corps for prosecution, or run them through civilian court.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
An unnecessary loss of life. Over what, a few bucks?
You'll notice that he gave up his wallet without a fight. It was only after the crooks got the wallet and ordered him into the restroom that he fought back. Now why would they have wanted him to be in the restroom? They already had what they were looking for.An unnecessary loss of life. Over what, a few bucks?
Originally Posted by :
(if in doubt, just carry a throwing axe or so)
Is carrying throwing axes more legal than carrying guns?(if in doubt, just carry a throwing axe or so)
Crazed Rabbit
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
Is carrying throwing axes more legal than carrying guns?
I have no idea actually, but a normal axe is considered a tool, if you could throw that...Is carrying throwing axes more legal than carrying guns?
AFAIK muskets made before 1871(foundation of Germany) are legal, but it could be hard to find some that still work.
Originally Posted by :
AFAIK muskets made before 1871(foundation of Germany) are legal, but it could be hard to find some that still work.
Damn that rules out the Henri Peiper, I will have to bring the India pattern instead .AFAIK muskets made before 1871(foundation of Germany) are legal, but it could be hard to find some that still work.
Originally Posted by :
But what I'm looking for is insight on how other countries would have handled this
If we overlook the fact that in the UK it could not be legal for him to be carrying a concealed handgun (unless some very special circs apply) I suspect the answer is roughly the same as in New York. Namely that it would be investigated as an unlawful killing, and the case would turn on whether the force used was reasonable. I'm no expert on criminal law but two robbers, one armed, robbing one pensioner, suggests that opening fire was reasonable. Obviously if he downed them, reloaded, walked up, and shot them again, that might be a different story. But he didn't. But what I'm looking for is insight on how other countries would have handled this
For UK bashing purposes though you will be delighted to hear that by carrying any sort of weapon (both things that are weapons, such as a cosh, and things that are not weapons but that you intend to use as a weapon, such as a hammer,) grandad would have been committing an offence.
Originally Posted by KukriKhan:
Hehe, Tribesman; funny you said that; the 'comments' section of the local newspaper is full of comments echoing yours - and others decrying the low pay of USMC Lance Corporals, both of which OBVIOUSLY led these young men to pursue a life of crime.
I just wonder if the locals will turn them over to the Corps for prosecution, or run them through
Harsh justice, isn't it?Hehe, Tribesman; funny you said that; the 'comments' section of the local newspaper is full of comments echoing yours - and others decrying the low pay of USMC Lance Corporals, both of which OBVIOUSLY led these young men to pursue a life of crime.
I just wonder if the locals will turn them over to the Corps for prosecution, or run them through
LoL. Fine job of editing Pannonian. 
I shudda known better. :)
I shudda known better. :)Originally Posted by English assassin:
If we overlook the fact that in the UK it could not be legal for him to be carrying a concealed handgun (unless some very special circs apply) I suspect the answer is roughly the same as in New York. Namely that it would be investigated as an unlawful killing, and the case would turn on whether the force used was reasonable. I'm no expert on criminal law but two robbers, one armed, robbing one pensioner, suggests that opening fire was reasonable. Obviously if he downed them, reloaded, walked up, and shot them again, that might be a different story. But he didn't.
For UK bashing purposes though you will be delighted to hear that by carrying any sort of weapon (both things that are weapons, such as a cosh, and things that are not weapons but that you intend to use as a weapon, such as a hammer,) grandad would have been committing an offence.
So basically it's illegal to defend yourself? Your hands are illegal to have on you, if you intend to use them as weapons, eh?If we overlook the fact that in the UK it could not be legal for him to be carrying a concealed handgun (unless some very special circs apply) I suspect the answer is roughly the same as in New York. Namely that it would be investigated as an unlawful killing, and the case would turn on whether the force used was reasonable. I'm no expert on criminal law but two robbers, one armed, robbing one pensioner, suggests that opening fire was reasonable. Obviously if he downed them, reloaded, walked up, and shot them again, that might be a different story. But he didn't.
For UK bashing purposes though you will be delighted to hear that by carrying any sort of weapon (both things that are weapons, such as a cosh, and things that are not weapons but that you intend to use as a weapon, such as a hammer,) grandad would have been committing an offence.
I some states the state monopoly on legitimate violence is taken fairly seriously you know. It also happens that some states, unlike others, actually have decent enough law enforcement that the citizenry need not engage in an arms race with the criminals, which has the bonus effect of not having all that many handguns in circulation and thus available to the criminal element as well.
Originally Posted by Watchman:
I some states the state monopoly on legitimate violence is taken fairly seriously you know. It also happens that some states, unlike others, actually have decent enough law enforcement that the citizenry need not engage in an arms race with the criminals, which has the bonus effect of not having all that many handguns in circulation and thus available to the criminal element as well.
Yes, but if you happen to come across an armed criminal, are you supposed to die for the state monopoly on violence instead of defending yourself with anything that is available?I some states the state monopoly on legitimate violence is taken fairly seriously you know. It also happens that some states, unlike others, actually have decent enough law enforcement that the citizenry need not engage in an arms race with the criminals, which has the bonus effect of not having all that many handguns in circulation and thus available to the criminal element as well.
The state monopoly on violence might not exactly be the grand idea you'd be willing to give your life for.
The funny thing here is that our armed criminals rather rarely use their weapons for more than intimidation you know...
Originally Posted by Don Corleone:
So basically it's illegal to defend yourself? Your hands are illegal to have on you, if you intend to use them as weapons, eh?
I'm not sure that body parts are covered.So basically it's illegal to defend yourself? Your hands are illegal to have on you, if you intend to use them as weapons, eh?
Prevention of Crime Act 1953 (Section 1(1)) states that:
Originally Posted by :
'Any person who without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, the proof whereof shall lie with him/her, has with him/her in a public place any offensive weapon, shall be guilty of an offence.
From the guidance manual for crown prosecutors:'Any person who without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, the proof whereof shall lie with him/her, has with him/her in a public place any offensive weapon, shall be guilty of an offence.
Originally Posted by :
'Offensive weapon' is defined as any article made or adapted for use to causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use. The courts have been reluctant to find many weapons as falling within the first limb of the definition and reliance should usually be placed upon the second. On that basis it must be shown that the defendant intended to use the article for causing injury.
Lord Lane, CJ, in R v Simpson (C), 78 Cr. App. R. 115, identified three categories of offensive weapons: those made for causing injury to the person, i.e. offensive per se; those adapted for such a purpose; and those not so made or adapted, but carried with the intention of causing injury to the person.
In the first two categories, the prosecution do not have to prove that the defendant had the weapon with him for the purpose of inflicting injury: if the jury are sure that the weapon is offensive per se, the defendant will only be acquitted if he establishes lawful authority or reasonable excuse.
It's pedantic of me, but its not basically illegal to defend yourself, its basically illegal to have a weapon with you in a public place. 'Offensive weapon' is defined as any article made or adapted for use to causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use. The courts have been reluctant to find many weapons as falling within the first limb of the definition and reliance should usually be placed upon the second. On that basis it must be shown that the defendant intended to use the article for causing injury.
Lord Lane, CJ, in R v Simpson (C), 78 Cr. App. R. 115, identified three categories of offensive weapons: those made for causing injury to the person, i.e. offensive per se; those adapted for such a purpose; and those not so made or adapted, but carried with the intention of causing injury to the person.
In the first two categories, the prosecution do not have to prove that the defendant had the weapon with him for the purpose of inflicting injury: if the jury are sure that the weapon is offensive per se, the defendant will only be acquitted if he establishes lawful authority or reasonable excuse.
It seems to me there's no real room for middle ground on this one. With the possible exception of CS sprays (illegal in the UK as they are made for causing injury), there is no point in allowing people to carry weapons to defend themselves unless they are allowed to carry guns (would it have helped our 71 year old ex marine if he had had a knuckleduster in his pocket? No.) I would certainly feel less safe, overall, if, say, it was legal to carry a baton or something, but not a gun. I'm not sure a baton would do me much good if a gang wanted to rob me, and I am sure it would do my wife no good at all (obviously all thugs would take advantage of the ability to carry weapons legally, and be tooled up at all times). So either you have to allow concealed handguns or ban the lot, when at least you can bust thugs if you catch them carrying.
Obviously, in the UK, that means ban the lot. I've made it this far without feeling this puts me in much danger.
Originally Posted by Watchman:
The funny thing here is that our armed criminals rather rarely use their weapons for more than intimidation you know...
Yes, and I don't feel like I'm in great danger because I don't carry a machinegun around. I'm just thinking about the rare cases where someone actually wants to kill you, though I have to say I cannot think of any such incident where the victim survived or killed the attacker in self-defence.The funny thing here is that our armed criminals rather rarely use their weapons for more than intimidation you know...
Best thing is probably to wear a ballistic suit at all times, that way you won't need much in terms of offensive power...oh wait, that's not allowed either.
You could however go medieval and wear chainmail outside while in a pub, when you're shopping with the family or while you're swimming at the beach.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO