Shopkeeper in NYC fires in self-defense

bullride8

I'm actually quite impressed MSNBC ran this...even with the liberal rhetoric involved.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32426383/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/?GT1=43001

Target-Ed

It looks like he had no choice but to defend himself, his employees and his business. It appears that he fired ONLY after he was in fear of his life.
I would hope that no charges are brought against him. No reasonable jury could convict him

Ed

pickenup

He was PISTOL WHIPPED, (that is enough reason to kill the scum) but he had not paid his EXTORTION fees, to own a firearm?

If he is charged and was to go to trial, and I was on the jury, he would go FREE.

Target-Ed

New York City has some of the most ridiculous firearms laws on earth. When I lived in NYC, I had a neighbor who had to remove the bayonet lug from a near mint M-1 Garandso it would not be considered an "assault weapon" THe city council could not tell the difference between a M-1 Garand BATTLE RIFLE with the M-1 Carbine. Getting a handgun permit was another piece of work. Carry permits were as rare as Hen's teeth, Home/premesis permits were a PITA as were target permits.

Ed
Originally from Brooklyn

osburnjb

Taking a person's life should always be a last resort. But this case is so clear cut to me. This man was being assaulted and threatened by four, gun wielding men. Do i think he would have been killed if he would have complied, i can't say, the statistics are out, but i know that if he did not have the determination to pull that trigger once his gun was in sight that he would never have the choice again.

The penalties of crimes committed in this country can be severe at times, especially on those non violent crimes. But when someone comes at me with deadly force, carrying a gun, and i had the opportunity to save myself, i would like to think i could pull the trigger. If someone is deranged enough to threaten my life, even if all they mean is to scare into submission, then they should be prepared to lose theirs.

bullride8

The biggest part of the story that caught my eye that really p@#sses me off..."Police said Augusto didn't have a required permit for the weapon used in the headline-grabbing shooting the Daily News called a "Pump-Action Ending."

I'm following this story as much as the cyberspace allows in regards to the @$$H013$ in NYC attempting to charge this guy with having an unregistered firearm....the 2nd covers him there.

buffalobo

The collectivist control freaks will always point out how the true victim(store owner) did this or that was not legal. They do not want you to be able to defend yourself. If you can defend yourself, you will not become a victim depedent on them.

Doug the Mug

Gentlemen, In my opinion, one of the factors that contributes to the increase in armed robbries, and other violent acts against members of the public, is actually the "it's better to not resist-give the bad guy anything he wants and hope he won't hurt you" attitude of anti-gun folks.

Many of these folks,(sheeple?)still have attitudes prevailent during the Woodstock peace and love generation, and have raised their kids accordingly. Problem is: It just enables the "Bad Guys" They are predators and thats what a predator does-look for the weak, or easiest targets to rob, rape or assault.

On some levels this is also about money, insurance money to be exact. Thats why most banks and stores encourage their employees to give up the money and without any resistance to a would-be robber. I was a police officer for many years and ran a small repair shop as a sideline business. The company selling us insurance asked me to sign a waiver agreeing, while at my shop, to NOT CARRY the off duty handgun that the police department required me to have on my person. This was of course to save THEM money in case some scum-bag should come in and feel "entitled" to the things I've worked for, in the event that he survived long enough to sue them. The state insurance bureau finally told them that they couldn't legally do that.

Insurance companies and big business are anti-gun because they look at the potential it generates for being sued. Politicians, tend to become anti-gun (depending on what crowd they're talking to) when looking to pander to sheeple for votes to keep themselves in office and the gravy-train on track. See...And you thought ventriloquists were the only folks that could talk out of both sides of their mouth.

Finally, A friend formerly connected to the New York State legislature explained the difference between N.Y. City pistol permit regulations, and those of the whole rest of the state. Years back, New York City wanted a renewable pistol permit system (to generate a periodocally renewable $$$$ source) while the rest of New York State already had in place,a one-time-only fee/permit (issued for life unless you did something bone-headed) They struck a compromise whereby the city got to have their renewable permit system, and the up-staters (excluding retired cops with permits)could no longer carry a handgun in New York City with their state permit. Of course the folks from the city could still carry a pistol anywhere in the rest of the state. It's still that way today, and still about the almighty dollar. I can understand a paperwork fee, but why should anyone have to PAY periodically for what the Constitution tells us is our right. Doug the Mug

legionkahn

[^]