.45 ACP - Size Matters

Discussion in 'In the News' started by Malum Prohibitum, Sep 26, 2007.

  1. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    A grocery store clerk in Framingham had a surprise Monday night for a would-be robber who flashed a .22-caliber Ruger and demand cash, police said.

    The grocery store clerk pulled out a more powerful gun.

    After looking at the .22, the clerk at A & J grocery on Kendall Street grabbed a .45-caliber semi-automatic pistol and loaded a round into the chamber, police said. As the failed robber fled, the clerk pulled the trigger, firing a round that missed the man but hit an ATM machine and a door inside the store, police said.

    Police did not release the name of the clerk, who was in his 40s. The robbery suspect was described as a black male with medium to dark colored skin who was between the ages of 18 and 25.

    http://endthewaronguns.blogspot.com/200 ... tters.html
  2. ptsmith24

    ptsmith24 New Member

    :? Maybe it'll stay that way, now.

  3. Sine Nomen

    Sine Nomen New Member

    Why oh why do people insist on shooting at thugs as they run away? YOU CAN GO TO JAIL FOR THAT. Worse still is that he did not even hit his intended target. I am not impressed.
  4. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    Yeah, but it was a .45, do the ATM machine immediately stopped any aggressive and hostile motion.
  5. budder

    budder Moderator Staff Member

    After flipping over twice and then going around the Sun, right?
  6. asbrand

    asbrand Active Member

    Why oh why do people insist on shooting at thugs as they run away? YOU CAN GO TO JAIL FOR THAT. Worse still is that he did not even hit his intended target. I am not impressed.[/quote:xbgt055b]

    Depends on the situation. He might be "running away" to find cover and then shoot at you. Or running for more thugs to help subdue you.

    Or he's "running away" while aiming his gun at you...

    You can't read their minds...
  7. viper32cm

    viper32cm New Member

    Who robs a store with a Ruger target pistol?
  8. ThetaReactor

    ThetaReactor Active Member

    Grocery store robbers aren't the brightest bunch to begin with, dude. That said, my stainless MkIII Hunter with the fluted barrel is rather intimidating if one doesn't know it's a target/varmint pistol, or doesn't notice the rather unimpressive muzzle.
  9. tace

    tace New Member

    or the tiny little hole the .22 bullet comes out of :)
  10. budder

    budder Moderator Staff Member

    I think the guy in the other thread did, too.

    tace, you wouldn't be afraid of an AR pistol or a FiveseveN?
  11. GeorgiaGlocker

    GeorgiaGlocker Romans 10:13

    At least one idiot from Framington.
  12. moga

    moga New Member

    Why oh why do people insist on shooting at thugs as they run away? YOU CAN GO TO JAIL FOR THAT. Worse still is that he did not even hit his intended target. I am not impressed.[/quote:2ieor89i]

    DA's love to turn the good guys into the bad guys in the Bay State.

    Rest assured, he'll likely lose his license for this. No joke. CLEO will find him unsuitable for discharging his weapon at a fleeing perp.

    Any metro Boston community, in addition to the communities like Framingham that have institutes of higher education within their boundaries, are the last places you want to find yourself involved in an firearm related incident as a good guy. Those communities' answer to violent crime is to strip licensed citizens of their 2A rights. Who cares about the attempted armed robbery, or that a violent criminal is still on the streets?

    Now if this had happened in the Berkshires or in central/western MA, then the situation would be viewed through eyes of rationality as it deserves. The police would look for the BG and the GG would have his pistol in case of a repeat performance.
  13. Firearmz

    Firearmz New Member

    Where does it say we can't shoot an armed person as they turn?? Many have been shot that way and justifiably so. With your pistol aimed and on target, finger on the trigger, it takes the average of .25 seconds to press the trigger. Now picking up a gun, chambering it, aiming or pointing it and then pressing the trigger, one could have danced the jig before being fired at. The decision that he was in fear of his life had already been made, the action of defending himself was all ready in progress, just because Johnny the thug decided to turn and run, is not the store clerks fault. Just like many people have been shot through aferative motion while committing a crime, just by the similar act of trying to obtain a firearm.

    Then again this is a news story, who is to say they have it right? He could have shot as the guy was turning, maybe he wasn't running but was distracted. I give the store guy the benefit of the doubt. After all is does appear he is the good guy.
  14. moga

    moga New Member

    In states without castle doctrine or similar, the lawdog of an anti-county may decide that the lethal threat has passed the moment the perp turns his back to run.

    I hold a FL firearm license, and FL has castle doctrine. As an example, I believe FL views the use of lethal force similarly.

    I faintly remember a recent news story where a licensed firearm owner was brought up on charges for firing at a fleeing BG. I'll try to dig it up.

    In the meantime, here is a statement from the department within the State of Florida that regulates firearm licensure:

    Q. What if I see a crime being committed?

    A. A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman. But, as stated earlier, deadly force is justified if you are trying to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. The use of deadly force must be absolutely necessary to prevent the crime. Also, if the criminal runs away, you cannot use deadly force to stop him, because you would no longer be "preventing" a crime. If use of deadly force is not necessary, or you use deadly force after the crime has stopped, you could be convicted of manslaughter.


    There are many places that may hold the actions of the shooter to just this test. Were your actions necessary at the time you discharged your weapon to stop grave bodily harm, loss of life, or the imminent commission of a forcible felony?

    This is the litmus test I pose in my decision making process. Others mileage may vary.

    Additionally I acknowledge that this doens't apply in the home of a FL license holder, because as is the case in GA, FL castle doctrine forgives the duty to retreat in one's home.
  15. moga

    moga New Member

    I ran across this story of a self-defense shooting in VA that illustrates what a DA could do to a GG who shoots at a fleeing felon when there is an anti-2A agenda to advance.

    If this had happened someplace else, it may have been decided not to pursue the case further. But a DA that is hostile to personal ownership of firearms won't allow the opportunity to pass without putting someone's head on a stake, even if it is a law abiding, upstanding citizen.

    Prosecutors want firearms charge in fatal shooting of robber in South Side

    Davis, a career criminal with a record of robberies and prison time, was hit twice -- once in the hand and once in the back. He died a short distance away in front of his home in the 2900 block of Cherokee Road, a couple of blocks behind the ice-cream parlor.

    Herring said he has decided to seek an indictment against Fielding for reckless discharge, not manslaughter, because it cannot be determined whether the shot that killed Davis was fired from inside or outside the store.

    "One volley of shots appears to have been arguably reasonable," Herring said. "And from what I've seen, the other volley of shots does not.

    Toward the end of the news story, the prosecutor unabashedly reveals his colors for all to see.

    "If there's anything I want people to take away from this, it's that I don't think more guns is in any way a good thing," the prosecutor added.

  16. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    Yeah, moga, that story is already on this site. It is the Ice Cream Robber.

    By the way, you might want to check that quote in your signature line for accuracy.
  17. moga

    moga New Member

    My bad MP. I didn't know that it was being discussed in another thread at the time I contributed it to this topic. I could have referred to the story in the earlier post to make my point. Having said that, I find it to be truly scary how some prosecutors are eager to serve up a victim in a violent crime because they fought back with a firearm. Framingham is just like this.

    About my signature line: Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I haven't figured out where and when the quote was said or if it was actually uttered by Jefferson or Franklin. GS1 previously suggested that I verify the authenticity of it but I haven't found a credible citation either way, so that's why I've left it as is. Either way, I think it embodies my personal sentiments pretty well.

    The good folks of Richmond need to impose their will on this DA with their votes if he is unwilling to respond to their concerns contained in said petition. Send him packing back to DC is what's needed.
  18. SilentGhost

    SilentGhost New Member

    So what happens to the clerk if he just pulls out his .45 and points it at the BG? Does he still get in trouble because he pulled a gun and pointed it at a suspect, even if he doesn't sqeeze off a poorly aimed shot? :D
  19. moga

    moga New Member

    As is usually the case wiith Firearm law, I think there are shades of grey mostly to consider. At the least, it would depend on the applicable laws where the incident took place, the political climate, and prior legal precendent.

    I'm curious to know how GA firearm law sees it.

    In the absence of an immediate, credible threat of grave bodily harm, I would imagine there'd be a possibility of assault for the firearm holder. If the license holder is authorized by a CLEO who is adamant about excercising their right to revoke under any unsuitability clause, they would possibly lose their carry rights.

    In MA, where the original story unfolded, it's a wrap. If you pull and don't fire, then the threat didn't rise to the level to use lethal force, and so your actions are likely to be construed as criminal. Or in very bad judgement if nothing else, which is all that is needed to force the licensee to surrender all of his firearms AND ban them from holding a MA firearm license for life.

    Reason #1004 why I left DPRM.
  20. JiG

    JiG Awaiting censure

    Benjamin Franklin

    * Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

    o This statement was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759) which was attributed to Franklin in the edition of 1812, but in a letter of September 27, 1760 to David Hume, he states that he published this book and denies that he wrote it, other than a few remarks that were credited to the Pennsylvania Assembly, in which he served. The phrase itself was first used in a letter from that Assembly dated November 11, 1755 to the Governor of Pennsylvania. An article on the origins of this statement here includes a scan that indicates the original typography of the 1759 document, which uses an archaic form of "s": "Thoſe who would give up Essential Liberty to purchaſe a little Temporary Safety, deſerve neither Liberty nor Safety." Researchers now believe that a fellow diplomat by the name of Richard Jackson is the primary author of the book. With the information thus far available the issue of authorship of the statement is not yet definitely resolved, but the evidence indicates it was very likely Franklin, who in the Poor Richard's Almanack of 1738 is known to have written a similar proverb: "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

    o Many paraphrased variants derived from this saying have arisen and have usually been incorrectly attributed to Franklin:
    + "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    "Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither"
    "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security"
    "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither"
    "People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."
    "If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both."
    "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
    "He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither"