Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

ch36u3v4r4 t1_izj7jmg wrote

A responsible gun owner entrusted to identify others responsible enough to be gun owners.

20

scotch_please t1_izjedh5 wrote

> A responsible gun owner

Maryland shooters are on par with Maryland drivers I guess.

7

CarlosDangeroso t1_iziyikb wrote

Heard this on the news first. Really strange story. I wasn't aware that this is the case, but apparently a lot of robbers have been targeting gun stores in Maryland lately. So, one can see why the owners/managers/employees of gun stores would be on high alert while inside their gun stores. However, it is obviously a crazy overreaction to see a suspicious car pull into the parking lot and run toward it with guns blazing.

It's a lucky thing for this guy that he is a terrible shot. I would imagine the penalties in Maryland for murdering a police officer without any provocation would be pretty severe.

12

throws_rocks_at_cars t1_izjx9hk wrote

The video footage they have supposedly makes this even stupider.

MCPD stationed a plain-clothes officer in a pre-dawn surveillance in an unmarked SUV without notifying the business, and then warned the business that an SUV would be used in any future burglary attempts, and then the interaction started when the plain-clothes cop was accelerated directly at the employee, almost hitting him, while the police lights were off, and when the MCPD driver was flooring it out of the parking lot, the employee started shooting after jumping out of the way.

It really seems almost comically farcical like it’s something straight out of Its Always Sunny or something. Obviously the store owner/employee discharging a weapon sucks but what in the actual fuck was MCPD thinking?

4

HockeyMusings t1_izk3y1k wrote

The police, conducting routine patrols in areas of increased crime, don’t have to notify anybody of anything. But what, they are supposed to call every employee at odd hours of the morning to let them know they are driving through the lot?

Having met with him in person two days prior, I’m sure they would have said “we’ll be keeping an eye on things.” And the subject of that meeting was a sedan that owner had seen on video acting suspiciously, not an SUV.

The interaction started when the owner started chasing after them on foot. And then tried to step in front of them while drawing a weapon. He’s damn lucky they didn’t straight run his ass over then as they would have been well within their rights to do so at that point.

The owner then fired two shots after they drove by him and were clearly not a threat.

This is supposed to be the model of responsible gun ownership here. That’s what’s comically farcical about this.

If anyone should have called anyone it should have been the owner, letting the police know that he was going to be lurking about outside his building and shooting anything that moved.

What if this had been a random civilian who made a wrong turn? This is why vigilante justice, citizens arrest, 2nd amendment heros don’t work. Just ask these guys.

1

Shmorrior t1_izkrtel wrote

> and then the interaction started when the plain-clothes cop was accelerated directly at the employee, almost hitting him,

Does that sound like the actions of a 'random civilian who made a wrong turn'?

And given this part from the original story, it seems like the store owner had reason to fear he was the target of a robbery:

> On Nov. 25, Atlantic Guns, another gun shop in Rockville, was targeted by thieves, WUSA reported. The suspects used a stolen car to slam into the building before stealing firearms from the business.

> The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms said that five similar burglaries have occurred in Maryland since Nov. 19, according to the television station.

1

HockeyMusings t1_izkskyn wrote

No. The interaction started when the gunman started chasing after the vehicle. Then, after the vehicle turned around and tried to leave the site, the gunman intentionally stepped into the path of the vehicle.

Did you watch the video?

1

Shmorrior t1_izl2ig0 wrote

> Did you watch the video?

Yes

> Then, after the vehicle turned around and tried to leave the site, the gunman intentionally stepped into the path of the vehicle.

That's not what I saw. Yes the owner runs into the parking lot, but the police car drives directly at the guy. He didn't go out of his way to alter his initial path. Cop could have turned on his lights from the beginning, just as he did after the shots.

There are numerous examples around the country of police shooting at cars accelerating at them.

1

HockeyMusings t1_izl366q wrote

He does alter his path. He takes two steps to the right while he’s drawing his gun before jumping to the left.

You trying to tell me that the police were trying to run him over and missed? Y’all stretching waaaaay far to reach for something here.

> There are numerous examples around the country of police shooting at cars accelerating at them.

That’s because they are law enforcement, not vigilantes. But that’s pretty irrelevant. Because in this case, the criminal shot as the car accelerated away from them.

1

Shmorrior t1_izl4yrj wrote

> He does alter his path. He takes two steps to the right while he’s drawing his gun before jumping to the left.

Those steps may have been an attempt to avoid getting hit. It's impossible to tell for certain with the camera angle, but those two little stutter steps weren't going to change much in the time it took for the car to close the distance.

> You trying to tell me that the police were trying to run him over and missed? Y’all stretching waaaaay far to reach for something here.

I think it's unlikely the police tried to run him over. But the way things unfolded, it's very easy to see that a reasonable person in the owner's shoes, with the info he had at the time, may have thought a potential robber was trying to do that.

> That’s because they are law enforcement, not vigilantes.

Law enforcement shouldn't have special self-defense privileges.

Tell me how you feel about Breonna Taylor? Should her boyfriend have been charged for shooting (and hitting!) police?

ETA: running after what he thought were (probably) armed robbers casing his business wasn't a wise decision. But neither is sending an unmarked police car to prowl around at 12:30AM during a rash of gun store smash-and-grabs that the police have specifically warned gun store owners to be on the look out for. I don't think a criminal charge against the guy is warranted because there is pretty clear evidence that the owner thought he was reasonably defending himself, at least enough for reasonable doubt to exist.

1

HockeyMusings t1_izl6vgy wrote

He has a duty to retreat.

And he can’t claim self-defense when he is chasing someone. See: https://i.imgur.com/exKYYCR.jpg

The police were on a routine patrol. Which is what you would expect them to do on areas of increased criminal activity.

A reasonable person who a suspects there is a robber in the area would call the police, give them a description of the vehicle, and the direction it is heading. At 12:30 in the morning with limited traffic that should be easy enough for them to find it.

As for what you think, it’s irrelevant. A judge has ruled the charges are warranted and that he be held without bail because he is a danger to the community

0

Shmorrior t1_izlfrqn wrote

> He has a duty to retreat.

If safe to do so. Cars are faster than people and it's hard to retreat if one was accelerating towards you.

> And he can’t claim self-defense when he is chasing someone.

It doesn't appear that he fired until the car was already driving towards him. If he was firing at the car when it was initially driving away, I'd agree that his life wasn't in danger at that time and the shots wouldn't be lawful.

> The police were on a routine patrol. Which is what you would expect them to do on areas of increased criminal activity.

In a marked cruiser, sure. Rolling up unmarked, by your lonesome, while on the lookout for gangs of armed robbers is risky.

> A reasonable person who a suspects there is a robber in the area would call the police, give them a description of the vehicle, and the direction it is heading. At 12:30 in the morning with limited traffic that should be easy enough for them to find it.

As the saying goes, when seconds count, the police are minutes away. All parties involved seem to agree that the owner mistook the cop for a potential robber intent on robbing the gun store as had been done in multiple recent incidents. A 'description of the vehicle and direction its is heading" isn't immediately helpful if you think that vehicle is full of armed robbers intent on robbing you right now.

> As for what you think, it’s irrelevant. A judge has ruled the charges are warranted and that he be held without bail because he is a danger to the community

As we all know, the justice system is always right. Shit, why even have a trial? If a judge thinks he's dangerous, just march him right to prison!

3

HockeyMusings t1_izlqjvc wrote

> If safe to do so. Cars are faster than people and it’s hard to retreat if one was accelerating towards you.

He was chasing them. Which, if on the lookout for armed robbers, is certainly not retreat. It’s vigilante justice.

> It doesn’t appear that he fired until the car was already driving towards him. If he was firing at the car when it was initially driving away, I’d agree that his life wasn’t in danger at that time and the shots wouldn’t be lawful.

Did you even watch the video? He shot it after it went by. It’s clear as day in the video. And the holes are in the back of the SUV. Even without the video that’s beyond dispute. Unless they have boomerang bullets now. Do they have boomerang bullets?

> All parties involved seem to agree that the owner mistook the cop for a potential robber intent on robbing the gun store as had been done in multiple recent incidents. A ‘description of the vehicle and direction its is heading” isn’t immediately helpful if you think that vehicle is full of armed robbers intent on robbing you right now.

If you think a vehicle is full of armed robbers that’s the exact moment your duty to retreat begins. You can’t chase after a car you think is full of armed robbers, shoot at them, and claim self-defense. That, and the fact he shot after they had passed, is the exact reason he is in jail with no bond. Your views on the justice system aside. It’s crystal clear textbook first-degree assault.

1

mrblindpenguin t1_izjdb4e wrote

I hope he has one of those "thin blue line" stickers on his truck and that it's mentioned in his defense.

7

kstinfo OP t1_izian80 wrote

This is a FOX report so I shouldn't be surprised the reporter near on to fell over trying to leave the impression the owner made an understandable error in judgement.

5

achirion t1_iziua5s wrote

Cop was asking for it driving that kind of car.

3

cptjeff t1_izjweul wrote

But yesterday I was told that gun store owners aren't nutjobs and love cooperating with police to make sure no guns are ever trafficked!

3

IcyWillow1193 t1_izis0y1 wrote

People associated with the arms trafficking industry are not society's highest achievers.

1

throws_rocks_at_cars t1_izjxfr6 wrote

Lol so does this make a real estate agent a “homes trafficker” and a car salesmen an “auto trafficker” and a grocery store a “produce trafficker”?

5

CriticalStrawberry t1_izklfhw wrote

I mean, auto sales and real estate can be pretty shady sectors of business sometimes. So it's probably not crazy to call them that. Real estate agents and banks pretty much single-handedly caused the 2008 financial crisis. And car salesman are the reason the average US car payment is $525-700/mo while the US average salary is $64k with a median of $44k.

1

throws_rocks_at_cars t1_izkne1e wrote

I agree but IMO the act of “trafficking” requires either large quantities (gun stores sell individual items to individual people), or illegal transactions (gun stores have to comply with many many federal/state/county regulations), or smuggling a controlled item into a different jurisdiction, or a combination of these.

I get why it’s fun to say weapons trafficking but I don’t agree that this is what it is.

3

IcyWillow1193 t1_iznha0i wrote

I concede I was using a technically incorrect term, but "blood-soaked and unethical merchant of death" seemed too wordy.

As far as illegal transactions... Where do you think all the crime guns in this city come from?

1

IcyWillow1193 t1_izk1t7k wrote

No, because those people are not malignant parasites harming our society.

−4

CriticalStrawberry t1_izkjqs2 wrote

>malignant parasites harming our society

Idk. I've interacted with plenty of car salesmen and real estate agents that fit that bill.

"I can roll $20k of negative equity into a new car you can't afford for a 40% APR and a 10 year term today!"

6

maudieb t1_izlm175 wrote

That's Maryland there was a liquor store that sold guns The Kmart in Oxon Hill sold hunting rifles too. So I am not surprised he took the liberty

−1

Loki-Don t1_izj26rq wrote

He is white. He will be fine. Probably get off with probation. Shooting at cops is an “understandable” mistake.

−6

CriticalStrawberry t1_izkk5uv wrote

The court so far has actually said the opposite. They "couldn't see any reason that it was reasonable to fire rounds at a fleeing vehicle". Sounds like the presiding judge wants the book thrown at him.

6