And the saga of Virginia continues, unfortunately good people are caught up in the political bull .
So it begins. That the police told him “You should have run” is against the laws on the books to defend rights and property ie: Castle Doctrine. I don’t think it will stand legally but it will be stupid expensive to make it right. Unfortunately Arlington is more philosophically in line with DC than VA which is a shame especially since a great many of our nations heroes who fought for our rights are laid to rest there.
Food for thought “He fired the gun three times just to scare them and hit one.” I think I’m going to leave that right there (I don’t trust my fingers) and refer you to what the USCCA is all about.
I hope citizens of VA will look really carefully at their sheriffs and DAs, come elections.
Something we can all learn from this situation - NEVER discuss a self-defense situation with anyone but your attorney and who your attorney advises you to discuss it with. The way the boss describes what the employee did can be used against him if the employee told the police something different originally.
Like @Craig6 pointed out, the boss said: “He fired the gun three times just to scare them and hit one.”
That could very well be considered warning shots which aren’t always legal instead of self-defense shots. No matter what, it’s going to make his legal defense harder.
Did this employee do the right thing? Should the charges be dropped? Many people are demanding that this person be released and chargers dropped, including Tucker Carlson of Fox News. My view is that the store clerk acted very irresponsibly by opening fire without having complete situational awareness and continuing to fire as they tried to flee the scene. Was the store clerk in fear for his life? Although I can’t know exactly what he was thinking, this was probably not a life threatening situation. Any threat was over as soon as they turned and ran. My view is that this type of behavior can give responsibly armed citizens a bad name, the prosecution should proceed, and that NRA or other 2nd Amendment organization should not intervene on the clerks behalf.
From what I have heard from the store owner on the Tucker Carlson show it sounds like a justified shooting. The employee was living in the store, at the time it occurred so I see it no different than a home invasion. The article makes it sound like the guy shot them over “stuff” but the owner said that the “victims” had barricaded the back-door so they only left the guy one way out and that was through them.
From the article regarding the store employee… “He was also charged with violation of a protective order”. So there is more to this in the eyes of law enforcement.
Welcome to America, where there are diverse cultures. You can pin whatever charges on this guy, but I doubt you can convince him he should not confront the three thugs with violence. He is actually pretty brave.
BTW, check the comments on the article. This might give an indication of where the jury trial will go.
Y’all talking about the same case, so I combined the two threads together.
I saw that in the article as well, doesn’t change his right to defend himself however. You got a anti-2A Soros funded prosecutor ( Parisa Dehghani-Tafti) charging a guy who defended himself with a gun in a anti-2A district. Maybe it is Karma, maybe it is someone looking to make an example out of the guy?
After looking at several sources of info, it seems like a lot of details aren’t being shared in the publicized story. I’m no lawyer, but am wondering how the man caught the violation of a protective order charge when THEY forced entry on HIM, not vice versa. One thing is certain, shots fired at retreating backs is not justified.
The man had a protective order that meant he was not to have a firearm (whether agree or not with that)….
There is more to this story than what we have been told.
What does the story have to do with the pandemic though? You figure these yoooths were hungry, or desperate for toilet paper?