User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/16/2014 5:31:06 AM EDT
[#1]
"Howard said the pair parked their vehicle in front of the credit union and left it running while they went inside. A woman outside of the credit union saw the car and notified employees at an adjacent jewelry store, according to Theresa Sesler, who said she witnessed the incident. She said a man walked out of the jewelry store, took the keys out of the ignition of the car and waited for the pair to exit the credit union. Sesler said she heard about eight gunshots" 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2014 5:36:39 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sesler said she heard about eight gunshots See what happens when you only carry a 1911 and no reloads, one of the bad guys got away 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2014 5:45:05 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"Howard said the pair parked their vehicle in front of the credit union and left it running while they went inside. A woman outside of the credit union saw the car and notified employees at an adjacent jewelry store, according to Theresa Sesler, who said she witnessed the incident. She said a man walked out of the jewelry store, took the keys out of the ignition of the car and waited for the pair to exit the credit union. Sesler said she heard about eight gunshots"
Jewelry store owner, of a non chain store. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2014 6:37:36 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
See what happens when you only carry a 1911 and no reloads, one of the bad guys got away Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Sesler said she heard about eight gunshots See what happens when you only carry a 1911 and no reloads, one of the bad guys got away ROST HARD
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2014 8:09:08 AM EDT
[#5]
Here in good ole' IL he would have been arrested for discharging a firearm inside a bank, scaring other people, thinking bad thoughts, shooting a future college student/aspiring rapper who was turning his life around, etc, etc, etc.
Yeah I'm a bit cynical about my state's .gov |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2014 8:31:05 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Read the reviews. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Your link is fucked. Goes to Amazon. Read the reviews. We need a new thread just for those. Hilarious. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2014 8:33:48 AM EDT
[#7]
A determined person who has the luxury of setting an ambush is a pretty potent foe even if he is technically outnumbered.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2014 10:21:44 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think I like the direction this thread seems to be going. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2014 10:33:49 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Read the reviews. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Your link is fucked. Goes to Amazon. Read the reviews. FRNI! (First review nails it.)
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2014 10:50:27 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: WOHOOOO alot better then this monstrosety lol http://i995.photobucket.com/albums/af75/jmosulli7/IMAG0340_zps3c10657c.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2014 11:00:08 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "Howard said the pair parked their vehicle in front of the credit union and left it running while they went inside. A woman outside of the credit union saw the car and notified employees at an adjacent jewelry store, according to Theresa Sesler, who said she witnessed the incident. She said a man walked out of the jewelry store, took the keys out of the ignition of the car and waited for the pair to exit the credit union. Sesler said she heard about eight gunshots" Bet they did not see that one coming! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2014 11:09:44 AM EDT
[#12]
Well done! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2014 12:26:12 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: ROST HARD Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Sesler said she heard about eight gunshots See what happens when you only carry a 1911 and no reloads, one of the bad guys got away ROST HARD Internets to that guy
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2014 12:28:13 PM EDT
[#14]
I can't believe no one has asked yet! What's his screen name!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2014 12:39:51 PM EDT
[#15]
Unpossible.
20/20 said CCW holders would always be victims of an armed attacker.* *as long as the attacker knew who and where they were, they were seated in overstuffed chairs, wearing unfamiliar IWB concealment holsters with retention, helmets with face shield, gloves and shirts two sizes too big. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2014 1:46:32 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
http://www.abc15.com/news/region-phoenix-metro/north-phoenix/police-investigating-bank-robbery-in-phoenix Sounds like a business owner next door ambushed them wanting to play cop. Quote HistoryQuoted:
http://www.abc15.com/news/region-phoenix-metro/north-phoenix/police-investigating-bank-robbery-in-phoenix Sounds like a business owner next door ambushed them wanting to play cop. What's the matter puddin'? Did that uppity citizen take matters into his own hands? Don't worry, there will always be tickets to write. Quoted:
"Howard said the pair parked their vehicle in front of the credit union and left it running while they went inside. A woman outside of the credit union saw the car and notified employees at an adjacent jewelry store, according to Theresa Sesler, who said she witnessed the incident. She said a man walked out of the jewelry store, took the keys out of the ignition of the car and waited for the pair to exit the credit union. Sesler said she heard about eight gunshots"
"Welcome to the party, Pal." |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2014 1:49:07 PM EDT
[#17]
Good shoot. A business owner who's tired of scum taking advantage of good people.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2014 1:52:17 PM EDT
[#18]
Cool.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2014 1:52:40 PM EDT
[#19]
Sucks to be those bank robbers. Fuck them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2014 1:53:30 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What's the matter puddin'? Did that uppity citizen take matters into his own hands? Don't worry, there will always be tickets to write. "Welcome to the party, Pal." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
http://www.abc15.com/news/region-phoenix-metro/north-phoenix/police-investigating-bank-robbery-in-phoenix Sounds like a business owner next door ambushed them wanting to play cop. What's the matter puddin'? Did that uppity citizen take matters into his own hands? Don't worry, there will always be tickets to write. Quoted:
"Howard said the pair parked their vehicle in front of the credit union and left it running while they went inside. A woman outside of the credit union saw the car and notified employees at an adjacent jewelry store, according to Theresa Sesler, who said she witnessed the incident. She said a man walked out of the jewelry store, took the keys out of the ignition of the car and waited for the pair to exit the credit union. Sesler said she heard about eight gunshots"
"Welcome to the party, Pal." People forget that these assholes will kill cops in pursuit. GOOD SHOOT! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2014 1:56:30 PM EDT
[#21]
Good shoot !
Any pics of the dead/dying perps ? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2014 1:56:45 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryHumm.....a promise to show the suspect and............... Never delivered. Aloha, Mark |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2014 2:09:27 PM EDT
[#23]
Ha Ha, even cops need a hero.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2014 2:10:50 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ha Ha, even cops need a hero. Not to bust your bubble, but  .
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2014 3:23:19 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What's the matter puddin'? Did that uppity citizen take matters into his own hands? Don't worry, there will always be tickets to write. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
http://www.abc15.com/news/region-phoenix-metro/north-phoenix/police-investigating-bank-robbery-in-phoenix Sounds like a business owner next door ambushed them wanting to play cop. What's the matter puddin'? Did that uppity citizen take matters into his own hands? Don't worry, there will always be tickets to write. Is AssaultRifler a cop, or are you assuming that? BTW, here's the AZ statute: 13-411. Justification; use of force in crime prevention; applicability A. A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and deadly physical force against another if and to the extent the person reasonably believes that physical force or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's commission of arson of an occupied structure under section 13-1704, burglary in the second or first degree under section 13-1507 or 13-1508, kidnapping under section 13-1304, manslaughter under section 13-1103, second or first degree murder under section 13-1104 or 13-1105, sexual conduct with a minor under section 13-1405, sexual assault under section 13-1406, child molestation under section 13-1410, armed robbery under section 13-1904 or aggravated assault under section 13-1204, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2. B. There is no duty to retreat before threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force justified by subsection A of this section. C. A person is presumed to be acting reasonably for the purposes of this section if the person is acting to prevent what the person reasonably believes is the imminent or actual commission of any of the offenses listed in subsection A of this section. D. This section includes the use or threatened use of physical force or deadly physical force in a person's home, residence, place of business, land the person owns or leases, conveyance of any kind, or any other place in this state where a person has a right to be. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2014 3:35:08 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Is AssaultRifler a cop, or are you assuming that? BTW, here's the AZ statute: 13-411. Justification; use of force in crime prevention; applicability A. A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and deadly physical force against another if and to the extent the person reasonably believes that physical force or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's commission of arson of an occupied structure under section 13-1704, burglary in the second or first degree under section 13-1507 or 13-1508, kidnapping under section 13-1304, manslaughter under section 13-1103, second or first degree murder under section 13-1104 or 13-1105, sexual conduct with a minor under section 13-1405, sexual assault under section 13-1406, child molestation under section 13-1410, armed robbery under section 13-1904 or aggravated assault under section 13-1204, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2. B. There is no duty to retreat before threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force justified by subsection A of this section. C. A person is presumed to be acting reasonably for the purposes of this section if the person is acting to prevent what the person reasonably believes is the imminent or actual commission of any of the offenses listed in subsection A of this section. D. This section includes the use or threatened use of physical force or deadly physical force in a person's home, residence, place of business, land the person owns or leases, conveyance of any kind, or any other place in this state where a person has a right to be. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: http://www.abc15.com/news/region-phoenix-metro/north-phoenix/police-investigating-bank-robbery-in-phoenix Sounds like a business owner next door ambushed them wanting to play cop. What's the matter puddin'? Did that uppity citizen take matters into his own hands? Don't worry, there will always be tickets to write. Is AssaultRifler a cop, or are you assuming that? BTW, here's the AZ statute: 13-411. Justification; use of force in crime prevention; applicability A. A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and deadly physical force against another if and to the extent the person reasonably believes that physical force or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's commission of arson of an occupied structure under section 13-1704, burglary in the second or first degree under section 13-1507 or 13-1508, kidnapping under section 13-1304, manslaughter under section 13-1103, second or first degree murder under section 13-1104 or 13-1105, sexual conduct with a minor under section 13-1405, sexual assault under section 13-1406, child molestation under section 13-1410, armed robbery under section 13-1904 or aggravated assault under section 13-1204, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2. B. There is no duty to retreat before threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force justified by subsection A of this section. C. A person is presumed to be acting reasonably for the purposes of this section if the person is acting to prevent what the person reasonably believes is the imminent or actual commission of any of the offenses listed in subsection A of this section. D. This section includes the use or threatened use of physical force or deadly physical force in a person's home, residence, place of business, land the person owns or leases, conveyance of any kind, or any other place in this state where a person has a right to be. I wonder how that distinction will play out in this case, and whether he will be covered by it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2014 4:28:27 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If he was waiting for the perps outside, then the robbery had already happened. The statute you cited (I like it by the way), says "prevent". I wonder how that distinction will play out in this case, and whether he will be covered by it? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: http://www.abc15.com/news/region-phoenix-metro/north-phoenix/police-investigating-bank-robbery-in-phoenix Sounds like a business owner next door ambushed them wanting to play cop. What's the matter puddin'? Did that uppity citizen take matters into his own hands? Don't worry, there will always be tickets to write. Is AssaultRifler a cop, or are you assuming that? BTW, here's the AZ statute: 13-411. Justification; use of force in crime prevention; applicability A. A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and deadly physical force against another if and to the extent the person reasonably believes that physical force or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's commission of arson of an occupied structure under section 13-1704, burglary in the second or first degree under section 13-1507 or 13-1508, kidnapping under section 13-1304, manslaughter under section 13-1103, second or first degree murder under section 13-1104 or 13-1105, sexual conduct with a minor under section 13-1405, sexual assault under section 13-1406, child molestation under section 13-1410, armed robbery under section 13-1904 or aggravated assault under section 13-1204, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2. B. There is no duty to retreat before threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force justified by subsection A of this section. C. A person is presumed to be acting reasonably for the purposes of this section if the person is acting to prevent what the person reasonably believes is the imminent or actual commission of any of the offenses listed in subsection A of this section. D. This section includes the use or threatened use of physical force or deadly physical force in a person's home, residence, place of business, land the person owns or leases, conveyance of any kind, or any other place in this state where a person has a right to be. I wonder how that distinction will play out in this case, and whether he will be covered by it? Sometimes the felony being prevented is not the felony being responded to. So my question to you would be, prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the robbery was the only felony that would, or reasonably could have happened had no one confronted them |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2014 4:34:01 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Man wants to push his chips forward against some bad guys, who am I to judge? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Wow, ballsy but unwise. Man wants to push his chips forward against some bad guys, who am I to judge? I raise my glass to this adventurer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2014 4:35:30 PM EDT
[#29]
awesome shoot
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2014 4:39:39 PM EDT
[#30]
A feel good story
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2014 4:49:08 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He prevented its completion. Or attempted to. I call covered. Never mind the reasonable fear of when they are in the process of leaving they a)take a hostage b) run someone over, c) shoot at pedestrians in the area that get to close. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: http://www.abc15.com/news/region-phoenix-metro/north-phoenix/police-investigating-bank-robbery-in-phoenix Sounds like a business owner next door ambushed them wanting to play cop. What's the matter puddin'? Did that uppity citizen take matters into his own hands? Don't worry, there will always be tickets to write. Is AssaultRifler a cop, or are you assuming that? BTW, here's the AZ statute: 13-411. Justification; use of force in crime prevention; applicability A. A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and deadly physical force against another if and to the extent the person reasonably believes that physical force or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's commission of arson of an occupied structure under section 13-1704, burglary in the second or first degree under section 13-1507 or 13-1508, kidnapping under section 13-1304, manslaughter under section 13-1103, second or first degree murder under section 13-1104 or 13-1105, sexual conduct with a minor under section 13-1405, sexual assault under section 13-1406, child molestation under section 13-1410, armed robbery under section 13-1904 or aggravated assault under section 13-1204, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2. B. There is no duty to retreat before threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force justified by subsection A of this section. C. A person is presumed to be acting reasonably for the purposes of this section if the person is acting to prevent what the person reasonably believes is the imminent or actual commission of any of the offenses listed in subsection A of this section. D. This section includes the use or threatened use of physical force or deadly physical force in a person's home, residence, place of business, land the person owns or leases, conveyance of any kind, or any other place in this state where a person has a right to be. I wonder how that distinction will play out in this case, and whether he will be covered by it? Sometimes the felony being prevented is not the felony being responded to. So my question to you would be, prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the robbery was the only felony that would, or reasonably could have happened had no one confronted them |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2014 5:05:52 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is AssaultRifler a cop, or are you assuming that? BTW, here's the AZ statute: 13-411. Justification; use of force in crime prevention; applicability A. A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and deadly physical force against another if and to the extent the person reasonably believes that physical force or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's commission of arson of an occupied structure under section 13-1704, burglary in the second or first degree under section 13-1507 or 13-1508, kidnapping under section 13-1304, manslaughter under section 13-1103, second or first degree murder under section 13-1104 or 13-1105, sexual conduct with a minor under section 13-1405, sexual assault under section 13-1406, child molestation under section 13-1410, armed robbery under section 13-1904 or aggravated assault under section 13-1204, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2. B. There is no duty to retreat before threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force justified by subsection A of this section. C. A person is presumed to be acting reasonably for the purposes of this section if the person is acting to prevent what the person reasonably believes is the imminent or actual commission of any of the offenses listed in subsection A of this section. D. This section includes the use or threatened use of physical force or deadly physical force in a person's home, residence, place of business, land the person owns or leases, conveyance of any kind, or any other place in this state where a person has a right to be. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
http://www.abc15.com/news/region-phoenix-metro/north-phoenix/police-investigating-bank-robbery-in-phoenix Sounds like a business owner next door ambushed them wanting to play cop. What's the matter puddin'? Did that uppity citizen take matters into his own hands? Don't worry, there will always be tickets to write. Is AssaultRifler a cop, or are you assuming that? BTW, here's the AZ statute: 13-411. Justification; use of force in crime prevention; applicability A. A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and deadly physical force against another if and to the extent the person reasonably believes that physical force or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's commission of arson of an occupied structure under section 13-1704, burglary in the second or first degree under section 13-1507 or 13-1508, kidnapping under section 13-1304, manslaughter under section 13-1103, second or first degree murder under section 13-1104 or 13-1105, sexual conduct with a minor under section 13-1405, sexual assault under section 13-1406, child molestation under section 13-1410, armed robbery under section 13-1904 or aggravated assault under section 13-1204, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2. B. There is no duty to retreat before threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force justified by subsection A of this section. C. A person is presumed to be acting reasonably for the purposes of this section if the person is acting to prevent what the person reasonably believes is the imminent or actual commission of any of the offenses listed in subsection A of this section. D. This section includes the use or threatened use of physical force or deadly physical force in a person's home, residence, place of business, land the person owns or leases, conveyance of any kind, or any other place in this state where a person has a right to be. Two armed men who just robbed a bank running at you while you sit by their car? I consider that justification enough. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2014 5:19:18 PM EDT
[#33]
I live about a mile or so from there,I was wondering why that chopper was hovering for a good hour and a half.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2014 6:16:42 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I raise my glass to this adventurer. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wow, ballsy but unwise. Man wants to push his chips forward against some bad guys, who am I to judge? I raise my glass to this adventurer. "It was crazy," she said. "Everybody is OK that should be OK, and that's all that matters." |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2014 7:47:35 PM EDT
[#35]
Does AZ law allow for the surviving perp to be charged for the death of his buddy?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2014 8:01:26 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Does AZ law allow for the surviving perp to be charged for the death of his buddy? You bet. To the poster asking about the CCW being potentially charged, I would doubt it. I think he is also protected from civil suits but could be wrong on that. The getaway is also part of the robbery and is a felony. Don't forget about the car-jacking that happened immediately after, you could argue that they weren't done committing felonies or endangering the public. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2014 8:47:46 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Two armed men who just robbed a bank running at you while you sit by their car? I consider that justification enough. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Is AssaultRifler a cop, or are you assuming that? BTW, here's the AZ statute: 13-411. Justification; use of force in crime prevention; applicability A. A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and deadly physical force against another if and to the extent the person reasonably believes that physical force or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's commission of arson of an occupied structure under section 13-1704, burglary in the second or first degree under section 13-1507 or 13-1508, kidnapping under section 13-1304, manslaughter under section 13-1103, second or first degree murder under section 13-1104 or 13-1105, sexual conduct with a minor under section 13-1405, sexual assault under section 13-1406, child molestation under section 13-1410, armed robbery under section 13-1904 or aggravated assault under section 13-1204, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2. B. There is no duty to retreat before threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force justified by subsection A of this section. C. A person is presumed to be acting reasonably for the purposes of this section if the person is acting to prevent what the person reasonably believes is the imminent or actual commission of any of the offenses listed in subsection A of this section. D. This section includes the use or threatened use of physical force or deadly physical force in a person's home, residence, place of business, land the person owns or leases, conveyance of any kind, or any other place in this state where a person has a right to be. Two armed men who just robbed a bank running at you while you sit by their car? I consider that justification enough. They weren't running after the business owner, the business owner was running at the perps. You can't put yourself in harm's way then claim you couldn't retreat. Good shoot, legally a bit gutsy. It's not self defense, it's self offense. I don't see criminal liability coming from the shoot but civil liability could follow. Not worth it, let the cops face the legal liabilities. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2014 8:58:58 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They weren't running after the business owner, the business owner was running at the perps. You can't put yourself in harm's way then claim you couldn't retreat. Good shoot, legally a bit gutsy. It's not self defense, it's self offense. I don't see criminal liability coming from the shoot but civil liability could follow. Not worth it, let the cops face the legal liabilities. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Is AssaultRifler a cop, or are you assuming that? BTW, here's the AZ statute: 13-411. Justification; use of force in crime prevention; applicability A. A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and deadly physical force against another if and to the extent the person reasonably believes that physical force or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's commission of arson of an occupied structure under section 13-1704, burglary in the second or first degree under section 13-1507 or 13-1508, kidnapping under section 13-1304, manslaughter under section 13-1103, second or first degree murder under section 13-1104 or 13-1105, sexual conduct with a minor under section 13-1405, sexual assault under section 13-1406, child molestation under section 13-1410, armed robbery under section 13-1904 or aggravated assault under section 13-1204, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2. B. There is no duty to retreat before threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force justified by subsection A of this section. C. A person is presumed to be acting reasonably for the purposes of this section if the person is acting to prevent what the person reasonably believes is the imminent or actual commission of any of the offenses listed in subsection A of this section. D. This section includes the use or threatened use of physical force or deadly physical force in a person's home, residence, place of business, land the person owns or leases, conveyance of any kind, or any other place in this state where a person has a right to be. Two armed men who just robbed a bank running at you while you sit by their car? I consider that justification enough. They weren't running after the business owner, the business owner was running at the perps. You can't put yourself in harm's way then claim you couldn't retreat. Good shoot, legally a bit gutsy. It's not self defense, it's self offense. I don't see criminal liability coming from the shoot but civil liability could follow. Not worth it, let the cops face the legal liabilities. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2014 9:51:00 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They weren't running after the business owner, the business owner was running at the perps. You can't put yourself in harm's way then claim you couldn't retreat. Good shoot, legally a bit gutsy. It's not self defense, it's self offense. I don't see criminal liability coming from the shoot but civil liability could follow. Not worth it, let the cops face the legal liabilities. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is AssaultRifler a cop, or are you assuming that? BTW, here's the AZ statute: 13-411. Justification; use of force in crime prevention; applicability A. A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and deadly physical force against another if and to the extent the person reasonably believes that physical force or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's commission of arson of an occupied structure under section 13-1704, burglary in the second or first degree under section 13-1507 or 13-1508, kidnapping under section 13-1304, manslaughter under section 13-1103, second or first degree murder under section 13-1104 or 13-1105, sexual conduct with a minor under section 13-1405, sexual assault under section 13-1406, child molestation under section 13-1410, armed robbery under section 13-1904 or aggravated assault under section 13-1204, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2. B. There is no duty to retreat before threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force justified by subsection A of this section. C. A person is presumed to be acting reasonably for the purposes of this section if the person is acting to prevent what the person reasonably believes is the imminent or actual commission of any of the offenses listed in subsection A of this section. D. This section includes the use or threatened use of physical force or deadly physical force in a person's home, residence, place of business, land the person owns or leases, conveyance of any kind, or any other place in this state where a person has a right to be. Two armed men who just robbed a bank running at you while you sit by their car? I consider that justification enough. They weren't running after the business owner, the business owner was running at the perps. You can't put yourself in harm's way then claim you couldn't retreat. Good shoot, legally a bit gutsy. It's not self defense, it's self offense. I don't see criminal liability coming from the shoot but civil liability could follow. Not worth it, let the cops face the legal liabilities. Sure sounds like he prevented the "actual commission" of a crime to me. I'm sure that getting away was part of the plan. They weren't going to stop and hand the money back once they got through the door. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2014 10:00:20 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They weren't running after the business owner, the business owner was running at the perps. You can't put yourself in harm's way then claim you couldn't retreat. Good shoot, legally a bit gutsy. It's not self defense, it's self offense. I don't see criminal liability coming from the shoot but civil liability could follow. Not worth it, let the cops face the legal liabilities. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is AssaultRifler a cop, or are you assuming that? BTW, here's the AZ statute: 13-411. Justification; use of force in crime prevention; applicability A. A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and deadly physical force against another if and to the extent the person reasonably believes that physical force or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's commission of arson of an occupied structure under section 13-1704, burglary in the second or first degree under section 13-1507 or 13-1508, kidnapping under section 13-1304, manslaughter under section 13-1103, second or first degree murder under section 13-1104 or 13-1105, sexual conduct with a minor under section 13-1405, sexual assault under section 13-1406, child molestation under section 13-1410, armed robbery under section 13-1904 or aggravated assault under section 13-1204, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2. B. There is no duty to retreat before threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force justified by subsection A of this section. C. A person is presumed to be acting reasonably for the purposes of this section if the person is acting to prevent what the person reasonably believes is the imminent or actual commission of any of the offenses listed in subsection A of this section. D. This section includes the use or threatened use of physical force or deadly physical force in a person's home, residence, place of business, land the person owns or leases, conveyance of any kind, or any other place in this state where a person has a right to be. Two armed men who just robbed a bank running at you while you sit by their car? I consider that justification enough. They weren't running after the business owner, the business owner was running at the perps. You can't put yourself in harm's way then claim you couldn't retreat. Good shoot, legally a bit gutsy. It's not self defense, it's self offense. I don't see criminal liability coming from the shoot but civil liability could follow. Not worth it, let the cops face the legal liabilities. I don't know what state you're from, but it's certainly not AZ. Duty to retreat? What the hell is that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2014 10:01:55 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They weren't running after the business owner, the business owner was running at the perps. You can't put yourself in harm's way then claim you couldn't retreat. Good shoot, legally a bit gutsy. It's not self defense, it's self offense. I don't see criminal liability coming from the shoot but civil liability could follow. Not worth it, let the cops face the legal liabilities. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is AssaultRifler a cop, or are you assuming that? BTW, here's the AZ statute: 13-411. Justification; use of force in crime prevention; applicability A. A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and deadly physical force against another if and to the extent the person reasonably believes that physical force or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's commission of arson of an occupied structure under section 13-1704, burglary in the second or first degree under section 13-1507 or 13-1508, kidnapping under section 13-1304, manslaughter under section 13-1103, second or first degree murder under section 13-1104 or 13-1105, sexual conduct with a minor under section 13-1405, sexual assault under section 13-1406, child molestation under section 13-1410, armed robbery under section 13-1904 or aggravated assault under section 13-1204, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2. B. There is no duty to retreat before threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force justified by subsection A of this section. C. A person is presumed to be acting reasonably for the purposes of this section if the person is acting to prevent what the person reasonably believes is the imminent or actual commission of any of the offenses listed in subsection A of this section. D. This section includes the use or threatened use of physical force or deadly physical force in a person's home, residence, place of business, land the person owns or leases, conveyance of any kind, or any other place in this state where a person has a right to be. Two armed men who just robbed a bank running at you while you sit by their car? I consider that justification enough. They weren't running after the business owner, the business owner was running at the perps. You can't put yourself in harm's way then claim you couldn't retreat. Good shoot, legally a bit gutsy. It's not self defense, it's self offense. I don't see criminal liability coming from the shoot but civil liability could follow. Not worth it, let the cops face the legal liabilities. His defense isn't self defense. It's that they were committing a certain class of violent felony when he shot them. Case closed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2014 10:03:01 PM EDT
[#42]
I seriously want to drop a Cabelas giftcard off at his store to replace his ammo.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2014 10:05:44 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You bet. To the poster asking about the CCW being potentially charged, I would doubt it. I think he is also protected from civil suits but could be wrong on that. The getaway is also part of the robbery and is a felony. Don't forget about the car-jacking that happened immediately after, you could argue that they weren't done committing felonies or endangering the public. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Does AZ law allow for the surviving perp to be charged for the death of his buddy? You bet. To the poster asking about the CCW being potentially charged, I would doubt it. I think he is also protected from civil suits but could be wrong on that. The getaway is also part of the robbery and is a felony. Don't forget about the car-jacking that happened immediately after, you could argue that they weren't done committing felonies or endangering the public. Damn glad to hear that. One robber dead, and the other locked up for a few decades .
Now let's all hope the shooter gets no-billed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2014 10:06:57 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What else do you expect from someone who can't spell bravo?
Quote HistoryQuoted:
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2014 10:09:19 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
http://www.abc15.com/news/region-phoenix-metro/north-phoenix/police-investigating-bank-robbery-in-phoenix Sounds like a business owner next door ambushed them wanting to play cop. Ambushed them, huh.
Wanting to play cop, huh.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2014 10:10:01 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wow, ballsy but unwise. Oh gee, why is that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2014 10:15:29 PM EDT
[#47]
Not the way I would have done it, but I'm glad there was a happy ending.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2014 10:15:32 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't know what state you're from, but it's certainly not AZ. Duty to retreat? What the hell is that? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is AssaultRifler a cop, or are you assuming that? BTW, here's the AZ statute: 13-411. Justification; use of force in crime prevention; applicability A. A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and deadly physical force against another if and to the extent the person reasonably believes that physical force or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's commission of arson of an occupied structure under section 13-1704, burglary in the second or first degree under section 13-1507 or 13-1508, kidnapping under section 13-1304, manslaughter under section 13-1103, second or first degree murder under section 13-1104 or 13-1105, sexual conduct with a minor under section 13-1405, sexual assault under section 13-1406, child molestation under section 13-1410, armed robbery under section 13-1904 or aggravated assault under section 13-1204, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2. B. There is no duty to retreat before threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force justified by subsection A of this section. C. A person is presumed to be acting reasonably for the purposes of this section if the person is acting to prevent what the person reasonably believes is the imminent or actual commission of any of the offenses listed in subsection A of this section. D. This section includes the use or threatened use of physical force or deadly physical force in a person's home, residence, place of business, land the person owns or leases, conveyance of any kind, or any other place in this state where a person has a right to be. Two armed men who just robbed a bank running at you while you sit by their car? I consider that justification enough. They weren't running after the business owner, the business owner was running at the perps. You can't put yourself in harm's way then claim you couldn't retreat. Good shoot, legally a bit gutsy. It's not self defense, it's self offense. I don't see criminal liability coming from the shoot but civil liability could follow. Not worth it, let the cops face the legal liabilities. I don't know what state you're from, but it's certainly not AZ. Duty to retreat? What the hell is that? No shit. This IS the Old West. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2014 10:15:58 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They weren't running after the business owner, the business owner was running at the perps. You can't put yourself in harm's way then claim you couldn't retreat. Good shoot, legally a bit gutsy. It's not self defense, it's self offense. I don't see criminal liability coming from the shoot but civil liability could follow. Not worth it, let the cops face the legal liabilities. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is AssaultRifler a cop, or are you assuming that? BTW, here's the AZ statute: 13-411. Justification; use of force in crime prevention; applicability A. A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and deadly physical force against another if and to the extent the person reasonably believes that physical force or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's commission of arson of an occupied structure under section 13-1704, burglary in the second or first degree under section 13-1507 or 13-1508, kidnapping under section 13-1304, manslaughter under section 13-1103, second or first degree murder under section 13-1104 or 13-1105, sexual conduct with a minor under section 13-1405, sexual assault under section 13-1406, child molestation under section 13-1410, armed robbery under section 13-1904 or aggravated assault under section 13-1204, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2. B. There is no duty to retreat before threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force justified by subsection A of this section. C. A person is presumed to be acting reasonably for the purposes of this section if the person is acting to prevent what the person reasonably believes is the imminent or actual commission of any of the offenses listed in subsection A of this section. D. This section includes the use or threatened use of physical force or deadly physical force in a person's home, residence, place of business, land the person owns or leases, conveyance of any kind, or any other place in this state where a person has a right to be. Two armed men who just robbed a bank running at you while you sit by their car? I consider that justification enough. They weren't running after the business owner, the business owner was running at the perps. You can't put yourself in harm's way then claim you couldn't retreat. Good shoot, legally a bit gutsy. It's not self defense, it's self offense. I don't see criminal liability coming from the shoot but civil liability could follow. Not worth it, let the cops face the legal liabilities. In Georgia and many other states, if you are anywhere you have a legal right to be, you have no duty to retreat so enough of this crap. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2014 10:22:07 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
http://www.abc15.com/news/region-phoenix-metro/north-phoenix/police-investigating-bank-robbery-in-phoenix Sounds like a business owner next door ambushed them wanting to play cop. Someone stole your dream? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
