Chinatown Shop Owner Who Saved Woman from Robbery By Firing Gun is Arrested, Bailed Out (Oakland: insurance, how much)

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by MechAndy

You guys do know that both towns have a Chinatown right?

The OP apparently doesn't.

[Boompa]

Originally Posted by Dangerous-Boy

Chinatown Shop Owner Who Saved Woman from Robbery By Firing Gun is Arrested, Bailed Out



https://news.yahoo.com/chinatown-sho...163937062.html


You can't defend yourself in SF?

Didn’t he fire six shots in a crowd?
You want the Police to ignore it?

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Boompa

Didn’t he fire six shots in a crowd?
You want the Police to ignore it?

No, he fired at the suspects. Which is probably why the charges were dropped thankfully.

No charges for ‘vigilante’ Chinatown store owner who fired gun at Oakland robbery suspects

[nandorrei]

The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

[Boompa]

Originally Posted by sav858

No, he fired at the suspects. Which is probably why the charges were dropped thankfully.

No charges for ‘vigilante’ Chinatown store owner who fired gun at Oakland robbery suspects

So the police did what they were supposed to do. No harm to the store ownr

[aslowdodge]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

"Does that really matter here"? Of course; that's the crux of the story. To the police, it mattered, as was explained in the article, and the guy ended up in jail with a hefty bail set. The OP's comment comes across as trollish. Of course you can defend yourself in Oakland, or anywhere else in the Bay Area. Defending himself isn't what the shopowner was doing.

The OP doesn't seem to have read his own posted link. He didn't even know what city the crime had taken place in, let alone the details of the story. That's indicative that the OP had an agenda in posting the story, besides merely informing people of a news item.

Still, the case has interesting implications, especially for the hordes of people out there, who believe that carrying guns will help them stop crimes in progress happening to others.

But in this case the hordes are right. I agree San Francisco or Oakland is pretty much the same for this.
The issue I see is it might not be a robbery only, but physical harm to the victim. 2 on 1 is a dangerous situation. It’s not unheard of for the victim to be assaulted during the robbery or seriously hurt as a result of being pushed down and hitting their head on the pavement.
I have to ask Ruth, if you were the victim in this situation not knowing the two robbers full intentions, would you prefer no one intervene or have the shop owner do what he did to save you?

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Boompa

So the police did what they were supposed to do. No harm to the store ownr

uhh no, he should have never been arrested in first place. Most of the cops on the scene didn’t want to arrest him, it was just one captain that did.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by aslowdodge

But in this case the hordes are right. I agree San Francisco or Oakland is pretty much the same for this.
The issue I see is it might not be a robbery only, but physical harm to the victim. 2 on 1 is a dangerous situation. It’s not unheard of for the victim to be assaulted during the robbery or seriously hurt as a result of being pushed down and hitting their head on the pavement.
I have to ask Ruth, if you were the victim in this situation not knowing the two robbers full intentions, would you prefer no one intervene or have the shop owner do what he did to save you?

I don't know who's right; the police captain raised a point. I don't know if a case like this has ever gone to court anywhere in the US or CA, or how other police precincts handle it. Suddenly, it throws this type of situation into question. It might not be a bad idea to examine the issues involved (I mean--for legal systems to consider such cases).

The charges were dropped, according to a recent update, so that tells us something. But the case raises a number of sticky questions, broader questions, about the use of lethal force by citizens not personally threatened in a situation.

[MechAndy]

I believe that you should have the right to protect others as well as yourself from grave danger with a firearm if that is what is required.
In fact I feel that we should follow the same rules as police officers.

That said I wonder if he was in a good “shooting lane” or zone if you may.
They seemed to leave that out of the description.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by MechAndy

I believe that you should have the right to protect others as well as yourself from grave danger with a firearm if that is what is required.
In fact I feel that we should follow the same rules as police officers.

That said I wonder if he was in a good “shooting lane” or zone if you may.
They seemed to leave that out of the description.

Well, this case seems pretty cut-and-dried, except for the point the police captain raised. But a robbery was going on in a store right in front of the owner, though he wasn't directly involved (until he involved himself). That's straightforward. But there can be situations that evolve out in public, on the street or wherever. that (armed) witnesses could misjudge. Not every situation is so straightforward. Do we really want untrained citizens acting in lieu of the police? Does the law even allow for that? I don't know that it does. People seem to assume that it does, but here we have an instance in which a police captain disagreed. I think this is an important question to clarify.