Mediaite reports
22-year-old Derrick Mosley reportedly attempted to rob Discount Gun Sales in Beaverton, Ore., on Thursday. Wielding a baseball bat, Mosley strolled into the store and smashed a display case.
But, according to police, upon attempting to steal a gun from the smashed case, he learned that gun beats bat.
All the store manager… of a gun store… had to do was pull out his own personal firearm. And that he did. Pointing it straight at Mosley, the manager successfully ordered the would-be robber to drop the bat, the unloaded gun he was trying to steal, and a nine-inch knife in his possession.
Upon arrival, the sheriff’s department reportedly found Mosley on the floor, still being held at gunpoint by the furious manager. The failed robber was booked on charges of first-degree robbery, first-degree theft, unlawful possession of a firearm, and second-degree criminal mischief.
Why are you calling this a legitimate DGU? He was only after property. That doesn't meet your standard.
ReplyDeleteBecause he didn't fire the gun although he certainly could have gotten away with murdering the guy. You fanatics should learn a lesson from this. This is how it's supposed to work.
DeleteThat was due to the actions of the criminal moreso than the shop owner. He saw that gun, and he stopped what he was doing?
DeleteBuy just to be clear, you say it is ok to pull a gun on somebody for stealing property, yes? And what if they continue to steal that property? I'm sure you won't be ok with them shooting, so what, you are advocating pointing a gun at someone with no intention of using it? And what if the guy attacks the gun owner, and they shoot? Now they should have never had the gun out and you want them in jail, right?
Mike,
DeleteThe law considers holding someone at gunpoint, threatening deadly force, to be equivalent to using deadly force, and it requires the same amount of justification.
Now, I'll agree with you that it's best if the criminal lives in a situation like this because that gives him a chance to turn his life around, but let's say the criminal didn't think that the guy would shoot, or thought he was quicker, and went at the gun owner. If there aren't cameras, the shop would look identical and there would be no proof that the guy went at the owner. Should the owner be charged with murder then? Should you post that he murdered the guy and was getting away with it since there's no proof to back up his story?
Still waiting on answers...
DeleteSometimes when you ask such stupid questions I don't answer. Then, like a pouty teenager you remind me of it.
DeleteThe question you asked was not even an honest question. It was more a challenge to say whether I ever would admit to a legitimate DGU.
You've been coming around here long enough to know the answer to that, but I'm afraid you can't be trusted to be honest about it. That's why you ask stupid questions like that and post another comment a couple days later crying about having been ignored, as if the fact that you caught me not answering is some kind of victory for your side.
You're getting to be a drag, man. I know the difference between a necessary and legitimate DGU and one that is not. You and your friends like Greg are the ones with trouble determining which is which.
Look at the times I've asked questions and you've not answered them. It's actually rare that I come back and challenge you to answer them. In this case, my request for an answer to the questions I'd posed was because we've been discussing similar cases that have referred to each other and to this case, but you've danced around this issue.
DeleteMost notatbly, we have the discussion of the shooting you posted about last Friday where the family pushed the hallucinating, paranoid teenager out of their house several times and eventually shot him because they feared for their safety. We only have their words for it that they tried to warn him off and force him out with lesser force, and that's not enough for you.
That's why I asked a legitimate question about this situation with one fact changed--what if the burglar attacked and we only had the shopowner's word for it that he tried to resolve this by merely holding him at gunpoint? What would your reaction be?
Yes, I've been here for a while, but we haven't really delved this deeply into self defense before, and I'm curious as to how you would evaluate such a situation.
I don't dance. And, you're damn right, when a gun owner shoots and kills an unarmed person, I don't trust the gunowner to be completely forthcoming about what happened.
DeleteYour continual insinuations that I think ALL DGUs are false is what's becoming a drag.
Mike,
DeleteReread the above comment and then look at my most recent comments on your "Legitimate DGU -- or not?" post from last Saturday.
I'm not implying that you think that All DGU's are illegitimate. What I AM doing is asking questions trying to figure out what your position on them is.
For instance, here, you say that you don't trust the gun owner to be completely forthcoming in a situation where the attacker was unarmed. Why would you expect them to be more forthcoming if the attacker Was armed? If it's a bad shoot, they have the same incentive to lie in each case. And if they really did fear for their life, they can be just as justified in either case.
Your comment also raises the question of whether you're admitting that you are very suspicious of an armed on unarmed DGU, but that you think that there could be times when such a situation could be justified. If so, then you would seem to be closer to the rest of us than to Laci on that point.
This is what I'm trying to figure out. Where's the common ground, if any, and where are the differences.
Your nit picking is a real pain. When I said, "when a gun owner shoots and kills an unarmed person, I don't trust the gunowner to be completely forthcoming about what happened." I didn't mean that I'd expect him to be more honest if the guy had been armed. That's just fucking stupid.
DeleteStop trying to catch me out by picking on every little thing that might be a contradiction.
When people defend themselves with a gun, human nature dictates that they're going to relate the facts in the best light to cover their ass. That's the point. That means in a DGU where no video captures the action and we have only the gun owners description of it, I'm skeptical.
Mikeb, the fact that you can't simply agree that the family who were attacked by the drugged-out teen had to defend themselves tells me everything I need to know about your assessment of defensive gun uses.
DeleteIgnore the attempt at finding common ground then and bitch for a whole comment about one sentence out of mine. Apparently this is pointless.
Delete