The Roanoke Times: RoundTable

Comments

# 1

[July 2, 2008 2:49 PM]

Stu

Does it really matter if the robber was armed or not?

If the headlines read that a "customer" walked into the store attempting to purchase something and was shot; that would be different. But it was a "ROBBER" attempting to steal from this man's place of business.

Would you have felt better about the whole thing if the owner would have killed him with a baseball bat?

# 2

[July 2, 2008 3:21 PM]

Allison

Armed or not the robber is indeed a ROBBER and he had no right to go anywhere and demand anything out of anyone. The article stated that the Sanco Drugstore has had multiple robbery attempts. Therefore one should assume that the owner would not just stand back and take it. Lets not sell short the fact that this punk was trying to take from a man that is just trying to make a decent living. I'm sorry it had to end up with a death but when you take a chance like that sometimes you lose. Thank god that the owner was only injured.

# 3

[July 2, 2008 3:25 PM]

Henry

A guy walks up to you with his hand in his pocket. He says "I have a gun. Give me your money". Do you give him your money or not?

If the owner got shot himself, the crook was close enough to take the gun.

# 4

[July 2, 2008 4:03 PM]

Ed S.

As already mentioned, it may not matter whether or not he was actually "armed" (which is somewhat misleading itself...fists and feet can be pretty formidable depending on the size/strength differential). Did the store owner reasonably fear imminent threat to his life? That is what his actions should be judged against, not second-guessing long afterwards.

# 5

[July 2, 2008 4:31 PM]

Ashley

Wow! Some of you sound like a lynch mob! I am all for self defense but when did attempted robbery become a capital offense? We don't even know the details of the incident yet.

# 6

[July 2, 2008 5:03 PM]

BUD

Evidently, there had been multiple robberies, the owner has seen his livelihood threatened repeatedly. He finally decides to defend himself AND his means of existence and it's a bad thing--the OWNER needs to be questioned. sheeesh.

# 7

[July 2, 2008 5:07 PM]

Henry

When did working in a store become a capital offense?

# 8

[July 2, 2008 5:26 PM]

HERB KREBS

NRA -1
CORY SCOTT-0
This is what the second ammendment is all about now just think if it was the other way. Weather the robber had a gun or not you have the right to protect your life with deadly force if felt bodily harm or death might occur. This is what happen. Period. This thug came in looking for easy street and found NRA avenue.

# 9

[July 2, 2008 6:44 PM]

C Ramsey

The 'objective' news division has again evinced the bias of the paper's institutional position. Though I'm sure it will be met with staunch denials and endless rationalization, the choice of verbiage reveals the bias.

Using the word brandish to describe the storeowner's actions is hardly objective, as it assumes facts that have not been revealed.

The legal definition of brandish describes a criminal act. The common definitions describe waving something, usually a weapon, in an aggressive or threatening manner.

Strangely a few weeks back when a Deputy, after retreating as far as possible and giving repeated warnings, shot and wounded a man who was very clearly brandishing a knife, the newspaper chose to describe the felon's act by saying he "approached the Deputy with a knife."

Is that technically accurate? Sure. If I raise a knife over my head with the blade pointed toward you and steadily and deliberately advance on you, I am approaching you. But, in those circumstances, if you had to describe my actions, would you say "he approached me with a knife"?

The Times has a tendancy to pick and choose words with a very specific connotation to spin stories in the political direction they favor.

Then if the issue is raised, the editors spring into action and claim the reader is imagining things and no bias was intended.

The current article also says the owner shot himself. This may be technically accurate, but it too diminshes any responsibility the criminal had in the incident. Instead, it lays the responsibility for the owner's injuries solely at the feet of the owner.

The fact that they were struggling over the gun was completely downplayed. Did the gun go off during the struggle striking the store owner? Did the criminal cause the gun to fire while trying to take it from the victim? The objective fact is, we don't know yet. But the implication in the article is clear.

What kind of warped, defeatist society have we become? In this case a criminal entered a private business intent on committing a violent felony (robbery). Then, when the owner produces a weapon to defend himself, the criminal, rather than taking the opportunity to retreat, attacks him and they struggle. And when gunfire results, we blame the store owner for trying to defend himself from a robber?

That's pathetic. Maybe we could just surrender to the criminals now and get it over with.

# 10

[July 2, 2008 11:59 PM]

Ed S.

Ashley, you're right and that is exactly my point. First, we don't know the details.

But secondly, even if it comes out that the man was not armed that in itself is not license to demonize the store owner. One must know the situation as the store owner knew it at the time of the event, and see if he could reasonably believe his life in danger.

Maybe I should have posted the "long version" of my response earlier where I babbled about "yes we do not know all of the information and I'm only speaking generically; this may not apply to this specific case". I had hoped in the interest of open discussion that would be silently understood, but maybe not.

# 11

[July 3, 2008 7:44 AM]

Henry

Liberals feel it is important for victims to remain powerless in the face of criminal activity. You rarely see editorials in the RT lamenting the shooting of an unarmed store clerk. You won't see a debate over whether the clerk should have been shot or not. You are more likely to see a debate on whether the police should have chased a fleeing criminal in a vehicle than see a debate on whether the crminal should have fled or not.

# 12

[July 3, 2008 10:18 AM]

Jack

Ed S.,

I agree with everything you said except I don't believe the guy should have to fear for his life.

In my opinion, as the victim of a robbery in progress, the robber should have a reasonable expectation of ending up dead in the end.

# 13

[July 3, 2008 10:49 AM]

Ed S.

Jack, I politely disagree. While I do not condone any crime, I do feel that the punishment or action should somewhat be relative to the initial action.

If I happen to look out my window and see someone breaking into my car, I'm not going to shoot them. Sure, maybe I'll give chase, hold them down for the police (which I've already called), but I don't think that warrants taking their life.

If someone "robs" me but I'm in no way reasonably afraid for my life (or significant harm, or significant harm of my family, etc.) then I'm not going to take their life.

Now the obvious question here is how does someone commit or attempt robbery without reasonably threatening the life of another? Because if your life, or significant harm, was not in question, what possible motivation would you have to give the person what they demand? That is probably what you were asserting, and is the point that most anti-self-defense people miss.

# 14

[July 3, 2008 7:59 PM]

Jack

Ed S,

I think there is a difference between looking out of your window to see someone stealing something from your car and being face to face with someone attempting to rob you.

It should not be your responsibility to have to determine to what level he intends to harm you.

I watched a news report the other day about a past incident in which two men attempted to rob a convenience store. The store clerk shot one of the men and the other one got away running. He was later apprehended and charged with murder. Of course, he didn't kill anyone. In fact, he didn't even possess a weapon. But, another person died in the commission of a felony, and in some states that is felony murder, whether you directly killed someone or not.

If this fellow was robbing a pharmacy, and it is a felony, he winds up dead, that's his problem.

# 15

[July 3, 2008 9:09 PM]

Ed S.

I attempted to basically acknowledge that with the last statement in my last post. The very fact that there is an attempt to rob you basically means your life is endangered. Else, the person is "asking" for money, at which point you have every right to laugh them off.

I had two basic thoughts on the story:

1. I can't say whether or not the guys actions in this case were justified. That's for a properly conducted investigation to determine.

2. Just because a post-event investigation finds the aggressor was not armed with a gun/knife/pencil/wooden spoon, does not mean self-defense was not justified.

# 16

[July 3, 2008 9:33 PM]

Jim

"But if the robber weren't armed, would this not bolster the argument that this crime might have ended without death for the perpetrator and injury for the owner if a gun hadn't been introduced."

Here we see the old bait and switch tactic of liberal politics: Take away the focus on the criminal and place it on the victim and his right and method of self defense. Come on Luanne, if the criminal had not tried to rob the store, THEN there would be no death or injury.

You can read many stories of armed law-abiding citizens successfully defending life and property with their guns and courage every day. Let me know if you want me to start posting those stories here.

# 17

[July 4, 2008 3:29 PM]

Jack

Oh come on Jim... you know the victim here is the dead guy. Not the guy who is still alive.

Jeez. :)

# 18

[July 5, 2008 1:06 PM]

Nick

Why is anyone who read this story surprised by the angle taken by the reporter? This is standard fare in the RT and many other not so objective papers. The common thug is the one for whom we should feel sorry and the law abiding citizen protecting his life or property is the bad guy for exercising his 2nd Amendment rights. If memory serves, the reporter in question, Ms. Codispoti, also did the story on the guy who was gunned down on Melrose a few weeks ago. The Times story came just short of canonizing the murder victim going on about how he was loved and respected by those in the neighborhood. Conveniently omitted was that he had been in the gray bar hotel twice on drug offenses. Gunned down in a car in a convenience store parking lot late at night...could this have been a drug deal gone bad? Surely not. Did the reporter just forget to mention the above facts? I guess we won't know unless the reporter gets into the discussion. The bottom line is, practice your reading between the lines. With so many agenda driven stories to choose from, this will be a useful skill.