Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Pizza Man Takes Gun Away from Armed Robber and Shoots Him With it Twice


During the struggle, the delivery driver was able to wrestle the gun out of the suspect’s grasp. The driver shot the man once in his neck and once in his buttocks.
You see, when you fight with someone and take their gun away, there's no need to shoot them. When you do shoot them anyway in the neck and they start desperately trying to get away, there's no need to shoot them in the ass. That is, unless you're so outraged at their audacity and so righteously furious at them for having attempted to rob you that in those moments you feel they deserve death.

This is what often happens when law-abiding people with guns, regardless of how they get them, encounter criminals who try to do them harm.

What's your opinion? Does the fact that the gun started out in the possession of the robber and was taken away by the "victim" tend to make this a legitimate shooting?

Waht do you think? Please leave a comment.

32 comments:

  1. "Does the fact that the gun started out in the possession of the robber and was taken away by the "victim" tend to make this a legitimate shooting?"

    Yes.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "You see, when you fight with someone and take their gun away, there's no need to shoot them."

    You are a fool. The robber does not get a "time out" because he turns his back to you. You shoot him until he's incapacitated, because he's reaching for his other weapon.

    ReplyDelete
  3. No, man, that's not why you shoot him. You shoot him because he had the unmitigated gall to attack YOU. and YOU are more important than anybody else, more valuable, and capable of deciding who lives and dies in the heat of the moment.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This link:

    http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&sessYr=2011&sessInd=0&billBody=H&billTyp=B&billNbr=0040&pn=1038

    is to the text of PA's castle law. It's a bit vague (deliberately so, I imagine) about whether the "victim" is permitted to use deadly force on property that belongs to neither him nor the assailant.

    It's also unclear (from the newst story) whether the guy who was shot was badly wounded with the shot to the neck. So, it's hard to know if the second shot to the buttocks was necessary. It's probable that the perp was running, or at least turned, away from the pizzaguy.

    Absent any refutation of the delivery man's description of the event (the shot guy's word is worthless, yes?) it's unlikely the DA will convene a grand jury. It's equally unlikely that the grand jury, if convened, would indict some hard workin' pizzaguy--whether what he did was technically legal or not. This sort of "nudge-nudge, wink, wink" legal system machination was fairly common in the MurKKKin South for about 100 years from 1865--1965 when "strange fruit" decorated the magnolias and live oaks of dixie.

    Reading the comments at the original story's website--I'd say perpblastin' is an approved method of vigilantiism in Philly.

    Anonyclown:

    You are a fool. The robber does not get a "time out" because he turns his back to you. You shoot him until he's incapacitated, because he's reaching for his other weapon.

    November 30, 2011 2:42 PM"

    GOD, you are SO brave, it gives me the shivers! Just to be on the safe side, though, you might not want to say that when the cops are asking you what happened--not all of them are gonna be on your side.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "and YOU are more important than anybody else, more valuable, and capable of deciding who lives and dies in the heat of the moment."

    You jest, yet I essentially agree with everything you just said.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "GOD, you are SO brave, it gives me the shivers! Just to be on the safe side, though, you might not want to say that when the cops are asking you what happened--not all of them are gonna be on your side."

    Well I'm not as brave as someone like you, who would calmly talk down your armed robber, showing him the error of his ways and how he can turn his life around.

    Not nearly as brave as someone who second-guesses the split second self defense decisions of someone who gets a loaded gun pointed in his face. Bravo, communist, bravo.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I saw nothing in the news article that suggests that the delivery man is being arrested. The robber, on the other hand, has been charged.

    Since the article didn't give a lot of details and since I wasn't at the scene, I don't know the order of events or the orientation of the shooter when the robber earned himself a new one. The fight may still have been on. As Anonymous suggested, deadly force is legitimate so long as there is a threat to an innocent life. You shoot until the threat is over. Remember also that the delivery call was to an abandoned building. How was the delivery man to know that someone else wasn't about to appear to attack him?

    All in all, good work on the part of the delivery man.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Doesn't the fact that the previously UNARMED pizza guy was still able to shoot the bad stupid and apparently clumsy criminal argue that no concealed carry or open carry was needed to deal with this crime?

    It rather proves the point for our side.

    It will be interesting to see if the gun fire residue on the tush shot shows the bad guy to have been at a significantly greater distance than when the neck shot was fired.

    The robber may be arrested now, but that doesn't rule out later difficulties, if not outright arrest, for the pizza guy.

    (Not to be confused with Herman Cain, LOL)

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Doesn't the fact that the previously UNARMED pizza guy was still able to shoot the bad stupid and apparently clumsy criminal argue that no concealed carry or open carry was needed to deal with this crime?"

    Not sure if ur serious...

    ReplyDelete
  10. Did anyone say that self defense never happens when the innocent person lacks a gun? All I've said is that a handgun is an effective tool for some situations. Had the delivery man been carrying, the additional step of taking away the goblin's gun might not have been necessary.

    But it seems that according to Dog Gone, we must all go unarmed until some thug brings a gun for us to take away. When we do that, we really shouldn't use it, since now we're the gun-carrying thug. It's an interesting view of self defense, but one that few share.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dog Gone,

    It must also disturb you that if I were on the jury in a trial of the pizza delivery man, I'd be likely to acquit. I suspect that I'm not alone in that.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Greg, based on the very limited information presented here, I'd quite possibly acquit as well.

    What would be important though Greg is to hear both sides, consider the evidence, and THEN acquit - which we cannot do here, because we only have a sketchy news account.

    I think the pizza guy was wonderfully brave and resourceful based on what we do know here.

    I am also delighted how well the pizza guy starting out unarmed makes the case that you don't need a gun to deal with crime.

    And yet, you and the other pro-gunners here keep avoiding that point of fact...could that be a critical thinking issue again?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Dog Gone,

    You really are incapable of reading anything that you disagree with, aren't you. I said that self defense is possible without a gun. The point is that with a gun, it becomes much easier. The delivery man could have simply drawn and fired, rather than having to take the gun away from the robber, during which process the trigger could have been pulled.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "I am also delighted how well the pizza guy starting out unarmed makes the case that you don't need a gun to deal with crime.

    And yet, you and the other pro-gunners here keep avoiding that point of fact...could that be a critical thinking issue again?"

    If someone survives a car crash despite not wearing a seatbelt, you don't use that to argue against seatbelt use.

    You're not as bright as you soooo frequently claim to be. You are literate, but far from gifted or exceptional. All the claims of fake prizes from unnamed foreign governments and being part of an elite group of brainiacs go against your demonstrated lack of mental capacity here.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "I am also delighted how well the pizza guy starting out unarmed makes the case that you don't need a gun to deal with crime."

    How is this an example of not needing a gun? The pizza guy used a gun to stop a crime in progress.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Oh, Greg Camp is takin' the gloves off now. He's gonna call out dog gone and see what she's really made of. Well, Greg, it ain't sugar and spice and everything nice.

    Hey, you orta attack me. I don't got no kolidge degrey or noneathat edumicashun foolishness. I'm as all-MurKKKin as tacos with menudo and crepes suzette for dessert, yowsuh!

    The pizza guy is lucky that the other guy didn't just shoot him. I mean, if I was gonna carry a gun everywhere (which won't be happening) then I WOULD assume everyone else was carrying one, too. In that case if I had some notion of being confrontational, I'd just shoot you, in self-defense. Cuz, when you're dead, well your words aren't worth much.

    ReplyDelete
  17. democommie wrote:
    "He's gonna call out dog gone and see what she's really made of. Well, Greg, it ain't sugar and spice and everything nice."

    I'm not? Aw shucks, and here I thought I was sweet as can be........mostly.

    ReplyDelete
  18. If someone survives a car crash despite not wearing a seatbelt, you don't use that to argue against seatbelt use.

    False analogy.

    The pizza guy didn't need a gun to defend himself in this case of an actual crime, which is statistically a comparatively rare occurrence.

    I'm betting he called the cops to come take the shot guy off his hands when the shooting part of this exercise was completed. Most pizza guys seem to carry a cell phone as part of doing their job these days, for things like checking directions if they get lost, staying in touch with the pizza place in case of a problem with the order accuracy etc.

    Had the pizza guy HAD a gun, the bad guy might very well have just shot him and then taken the money off of him. It could have more easily escalated into a shootout, which would not necessarily have resulted in this positive outcome.

    But I'm betting that the pizza employer doesn't want the insurance liability that goes with one of their employees carrying a firearm and using it on the job, particularly since they go from one address of private property to another over and over and over all during their shift.

    There are a lot of reasons why it wouldn't be desirable for the pizza guy to be carrying. There isn't much of an upside to carrying, even if the delivery drivers are subject to frequent robbery.

    Don't even get me started on the negatives for the workers comp aspects of this, along with the property liability issues.

    Anonymous - and yet there WAS no other weapon, was there?

    I don't care that this pizza delivery guy shot the would-be robber twice. Maybe there was some good reason for shooting him in the tush; or maybe that shot was a bit more of an accident. Those details are what the cops get paid to figure out, and the reason that there are forensic science specialists.That is what should happen, a good reconstruction of the crime from the factual evidence.

    Pending the release of that information, there is no way to know if the police will determine this to be a legitimate shooting, or if he went too far. That's their job. It's what they do.

    What I take from this is that a competent, self-reliant and resourceful delivery guy didn't need to be carrying a gun to deal with the bad guy; he just needed the presence of mind and skill to take the gun away. I think democommie made an excellent point - pizza companies have insurance to compensate their employees for such losses. There was no percentage in fighting this guy. It wasn't the smartest move he could have made.

    It could just as easily have been the pizza guy who ended up in the hospital instead of the bad guy. This was a dumb fight to pick, at least based on the details provided so far. Neither life was worth risking for the hundred bucks in that wallet.

    Or perhaps you don't understand the arguments of proportionate risk for reward, or alternately, the concept of utility.

    I'm sure Laci is now laughing his tush off at your deficiencies.

    Let me clue you in to expected utility hypothesis, aka game theory, Because it is the kind of thing that we can discuss, and that you appear not to understand.

    Here is a nice little intro to the subject, with the training wheels still attached for you.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_utility_hypothesis

    Democommie, I DO hope I didn't disappoint your expectations of me.

    I'm sure that it will challenge the Anonymi and Greg C.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Dog Gone,

    I'm aware of game theory. Yes, you've once again told us that you know something that many others don't. Sadly for you, I do know about it.

    But let's just take the idea of carrying a concealed handgun. The risk of carrying a gun is much lower than the risk of being the object of a robber or violent thug. (This is for those of us who study the matter of carrying correctly. Plaxico Burress types need not apply.) There is hardly any risk in legally carrying a handgun. That being the case, I'm better off to have it than not to have it, even if the advantage is only a slight one.

    In addition, I challenge your assertion that it isn't worth the risk to fight over money. Every time we give in to evil acts, we give evil people our permission to continue what they do.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Greg said, "Since the article didn't give a lot of details and since I wasn't at the scene, I don't know the order of events or the orientation of the shooter..."

    C'mon man, you should know by now we don't need no stinkin' facts. We flesh it out.

    In this case, it sounds to me like one of those indignant shootings that you guys always call legitimate DGUs. Really what they are are vigilante after-the-fact punishments.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Actually, according to Game Theory, if you believe your opponent is armed, you are more likely to shoot if you are armed and believe you are in danger.

    The criminal is desperate and likely to shoot. As one said "don't leave no witnesses" when he shot another drug dealer's grandmother.

    So, an armed dickhead is more likely to use that gun if they are scared.

    This is for those of us who study the matter of carrying correctly...There is hardly any risk in legally carrying a handgun.

    If you truly "studied" the ramifications of carrying a gun, you wouldn't. There are far more legal liabilities if you fuck up with your gun than you would like.

    You will then find yourself unarmed in a place full of criminals.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Thanks for capturing the entire issue of concealed carry in a 2x2 game theory matrix. LMFAO

    Congrats, you watched A Beautiful Mind and learned something like a big girl. Yay!

    ReplyDelete
  23. "If you truly "studied" the ramifications of carrying a gun, you wouldn't. There are far more legal liabilities if you fuck up with your gun than you would like."

    That's like saying marijuana is bad because it can get you in legal trouble.

    The answer is to norm ccw. If a 911 operator gets a call of a man with a holstered gun at the grocery store, her response should be "so what?". The answer isn't to avoid ccw because of fucked up laws. We are clearly winning.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Laci the Dog,

    Spoken like a true prosecutor, and your comment confirms my suspicion that your kind aren't out to protect the people. You just want as many convictions as possible.

    Contrary to your comment, the only reason that I would shoot is that someone is making an immediate threat to my life or the life of another innocent.

    ReplyDelete
  25. GC wrote, very tellingly:

    In addition, I challenge your assertion that it isn't worth the risk to fight over money. Every time we give in to evil acts, we give evil people our permission to continue what they do.

    WRONG, Greg. The consequences of imposing legal penalties and punishment through the courts is the correct response to evil acts, not personal vigilantism. It is what defines a society of law from lawless personal vendetta and revenge. If there was ever a perfect example of why people like you are wrong about the reasons to carry a firearm, this is it. There is no 'permission to continue evil acts' in preferring the police are the ones to use force - and only minimum force at that. Your statement is just nuts.

    You've also indicated that you would shoot anyone who tried to rob you of any amount of money, no matter how small the amount. This is stupid, it creates a situation where the risk does not justify the potential rewards. In this case, it increases the potential legal liability of the pizza business that employed this delivery person to an extent that exceeds the possible amount of loss.

    Greg also wrote:

    Spoken like a true prosecutor, and your comment confirms my suspicion that your kind aren't out to protect the people. You just want as many convictions as possible.


    Knock knock puddin'head. Laci is a very good defense attorney, not a prosecutor.

    And then we have Ignoronamous:

    Anonymous said...
    Thanks for capturing the entire issue of concealed carry in a 2x2 game theory matrix. LMFAO
    Congrats, you watched A Beautiful Mind and learned something like a big girl. Yay!


    My application of game theory was not so simplistic; that is your approach.
    Sorry, but I've never seen the movie 'A Beautiful Mind', either. As to YOUR competence, or Greg's on the topic - that has yet to be displayed. The critical thinking level from you two has been simplistic and superficial, consistently.

    I learn what I know from qualified sources in their field, as well as from reading serious non-fiction. I'm just working my way through an excellent book on economics that Laci was kind enough to share with me - "Keynes Hayek: The Clash That Defined Modern Economics", by Nicholas Wapshott.(Thank you again, Laci!)

    So why don't you go back to your comic book (sorry - graphic novel) or your fave violent shoot-em-up video game, for your usual source of intellectual stimulation? Or maybe listen to the fact-averse, reason-averse ideological rants of one of the right wing media like Bleck or Limp-paw.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Dog Gone,

    Thanks for the correction. I'd got the impression that he was on the other side, but I've only been reading here for a couple of months. He doesn't sound like a defense attorney.

    You should give "A Beautiful Mind" a try. Russell Crowe and Paul Bettany do great work together, as you can see in "Master and Commander" as well.

    ReplyDelete
  27. In a response to Laci, Greg said this: "the only reason that I would shoot is that someone is making an immediate threat to my life or the life of another innocent."

    Don't you see the problem, Greg? Since you can't read people's minds, you cannot know this. Therefore you have to make a judgment call which I don't think you're capable of making responsibly. The result is you would kill people unnecessarily and describe it as having responded to lethal threat. And you'd get away with it too.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Greg contradicts himself.

    He says he'd only shoot if someone was a threat to his life or someone else's life, but in other comments he says he'd shoot someone even over a few bucks in his pocket,and that the other person's life is not more important than those few bucks.

    At issue here is how did the bad guy get shot in the backside. We aren't supposed to shoot people when they are no longer a threat. That would mean that if the first shot was to the bad guy's neck, the shot which has put him in critical condition, then why the second shot at all? If the first shot was to his ass, then he was clearly trying to move away, to leave, and again, no longer a threat.

    There would be an automatic inquiry into this if it were a police shooting. Yet the pro-gunners go off their collective nuts if anyone asks the same questions about a civilian shooting.

    The police standard should be higher, but I think the standard for an inquiry should be triggered by any shooting, especially one that kills, or maims and injures.

    They don't want anyone to look to closely, they don't want anyone to be held accountable if they fucked up. They just want to glorify someone for shooting a possible - hell, I'll give you probable here - bad guy.

    This goes to a question of appropriate and necessary force.

    Yes, I'll agree with FWM on one part. That this gun started out in the hands of the other guy does make one of the shots legitimate. But there is a serious question about that second shot being legitimate, whichever shot that was.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Mikeb302000,

    I wouldn't "get away with it," as you put it. The standard is whether reasonable people (not your co-bloggers) would agree with the action. You said that I can't read minds. With regard to a threat on my life, that isn't necessarily true. If someone is holding a weapon and is coming at me or has made verbal threats, the intent is clear. I don't have to be killed before I can legitimately claim self defense. But that seems to be what you're asking, so I have to wonder why you favor innocent people dying and thugs living.

    Dog Gone,

    It's not that I'd shoot someone over a few dollars. As I've asked before, how will the bad guy get those dollars from me? If he says please, I'll refuse. Now what? Can't you see that the threat of force is involved in a robbery? If there's no threat, then, really, there's no robbery.

    Now about the shooting itself. I don't know what kind of gun was used, but the delivery man may have simply fired off two rapid shots, and the goblin may have spun around or otherwise changed position in between the two. That all could happen within the heat of the moment. Or perhaps the shot in the buttocks was the first. What if during the struggle for the gun, the thug wrapped his arms around the delivery man? The first shot could have been the good guy's effort to break contact, and the second would then have been his attempt to stop the threat.

    But really, are you all that worried about a thug who came armed with the intent of committing a felony? You'd come down hard on one of us for carrying a gun for self defense. Show at least as much ire toward the goblin.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Greg, this is exactly the problem.

    "If someone is holding a weapon and is coming at me or has made verbal threats, the intent is clear."

    You say it's clear but it's not. You sound like you just itchin' to show us what a no-nonsense kinda guy you are. And you wonder why we think you and your kind are dangerous.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Mikeb302000,

    O.K., a large man is holding a baseball bat. He's standing ten yards away from you. He shouts, "I'm gonna beat your head in!" Now, what is his intent?

    A mugger sees you on the sidewalk and pulls a knife. He offers you the choice of being stabbed or giving him your money. What's his intent?

    A man breaks into a woman's home in the middle of the night. What's his intent?

    In all of those cases, a reasonable person would conclude that the intent is to cause harm. We could, by some tortured exercise, come up with innocent intentions, but let's get serious. There are times when the intent is clear, and if the person making the threat is just joking, then that person has colossally bad judgement.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Greg Camp:

    None of your gunzporn fantasies say anything about the victim's other options.

    Pull a knife on me when I'm walking down the street and you'll be contending with someone who knows enough to put some distance between us before looking for a defensive weapon of his own--a trash can, garden hose, garden implement, rolled up newspaper, my own jacket or belt--there's a lot of possibilities. I'd also get on the cellphone and dial 9-1-1.

    Guy with a baseball bat? same, same.

    A man breaks into a woman's home in the middle of the night? Does she live on the street? No? Well, wtf does that have to do with walkin' round with your hogleg stuck in your belt, Wild Greg?

    ReplyDelete