Philadelphia Student Shoots Armed Robber


Providence Ranch

New member
Outstanding! First, that a 21-year old college student had the correct frame of mind to be legally armed at all times possible, and second that he showed conviction and courage in the face of teenaged killers. My hat is off to him, and my prayers for his speedy recovery.
 

Phillip Gain

New member
The important lesson that EVERYONE needs to take from this:

This IS a good ending, since the defender survived the encounter. In fact, this is the most likely ending you can expect when defending yourself against an armed attack on the street. Pistols are comparatively underpowered firearms. One shot will rarely stop an attacker. If both the assailant and defender are armed with pistols, good chance the encounter will end just like this, with both participants hospitalized.

The defender's life will never be the same. He will likely have a long and painful physical recovery.

His emotional recovery will likely be even longer and more painful in many ways, despite intellectually knowing he was in the right. In times when he's feeling vulnerable, the moment where he shot a 15 year old kid will play over and over in his head. He will doubt himself. "Did I need to shoot him? What if I'd just given him the money? What if I hadn't gone outside for a smoke? What if it had been my friend and not me who got shot? What if he had died?" On and on.

While the defender rightly is not facing any criminal charges, he may still have to defend against a civil suit, which can be a cumbersome financial burden even if you win the case.

What makes this a GOOD ending? Only that it beats the worst alternative, which is being robbed and killed with no viable means of defending oneself.

I've said this in other posts...but all the "keyboard killers," "mall ninjas," "sheep dogs," and other "tough guy" types need to take note. This is serious business, for serious-minded people. The stakes are incredibly high. And even if you do everything right, you can still have a really crappy outcome.
 

G50AE

Well-known member
I've said this in other posts...but all the "keyboard killers," "mall ninjas," "sheep dogs," and other "tough guy" types need to take note. This is serious business, for serious-minded people. The stakes are incredibly high. And even if you do everything right, you can still have a really crappy outcome.

So noted and thread tagged.
 
Of course, I'm sure some will say that if he hadn't been armed, he wouldn't have been so gung-ho to refuse the criminals. Therefore, the right answer would have been to meekly give in.

This kid did great. I hope a pro-gun organization starts a legal defense fund for this kid if the criminal does sue him.
 

Tucker's Mom

New member
I applaud this guy for his bravery and the way he had handled the situation. There may (or may not) be repurcussions later but let's face it -- he did the right thing. One big HOORAY! for gun owners! Just one question -- does Temple University allows guns on campus? If they do, good on them too!
 

JohnLM

New member
The important lesson that EVERYONE needs to take from this:

This IS a good ending, since the defender survived the encounter. In fact, this is the most likely ending you can expect when defending yourself against an armed attack on the street. Pistols are comparatively underpowered firearms. One shot will rarely stop an attacker. If both the assailant and defender are armed with pistols, good chance the encounter will end just like this, with both participants hospitalized.

The defender's life will never be the same. He will likely have a long and painful physical recovery.

His emotional recovery will likely be even longer and more painful in many ways, despite intellectually knowing he was in the right. In times when he's feeling vulnerable, the moment where he shot a 15 year old kid will play over and over in his head. He will doubt himself. "Did I need to shoot him? What if I'd just given him the money? What if I hadn't gone outside for a smoke? What if it had been my friend and not me who got shot? What if he had died?" On and on.

While the defender rightly is not facing any criminal charges, he may still have to defend against a civil suit, which can be a cumbersome financial burden even if you win the case.

What makes this a GOOD ending? Only that it beats the worst alternative, which is being robbed and killed with no viable means of defending oneself.

I've said this in other posts...but all the "keyboard killers," "mall ninjas," "sheep dogs," and other "tough guy" types need to take note. This is serious business, for serious-minded people. The stakes are incredibly high. And even if you do everything right, you can still have a really crappy outcome.
You made some very good points but I don't think there is no grounds for any civil suit in this case. The victim shot the kid while trying to rob him. I hope the kid come out of this okay. Emotionally as well as physically.
 

CapGun

New member
Phil Gain :yu: The only thing that will truly stop the civil suit I am happy to let you know is >>>>>
Our new Republican Governor recently signed a Castle Doctrine Bill. It went into effect the end of August!
 

Iam2Taz

New member
John- You are in Michigan and think that there is no grounds for a law suit? When I lived in MI it was one of the most suit happy places I could find. A person can be sued for just about anything!
Even though the Castle Doctrine is now signed in Penn, it doesn't mean he can be sued. It may mean the BG will lose immediately, but the costs associated with the defense could be incredible. The expected cost alone could cause an insurance carrier to settle without defense. Thereby, earning the attorney a fee and his client a settlement. - aka Jackpot

Food for thought...

By the way... I am very glad this young man made it. I too applaud his foresight and courage and pray that he recovers quickly.
 

Phillip Gain

New member
You made some very good points but I don't think there is no grounds for any civil suit in this case. The victim shot the kid while trying to rob him. I hope the kid come out of this okay. Emotionally as well as physically.

Oh yeah, of course the civil suit is groundless. But anyone with $250 or so can file a civil suit, pretty much for any reason. And if the assailant's family does so, then the victim will have to hire legal counsel to defend against the suit. He'll win, but it will cost him a few grand most likely. Lawyers ain't cheap.
 

Phillip Gain

New member
Phil Gain :yu: The only thing that will truly stop the civil suit I am happy to let you know is >>>>>
Our new Republican Governor recently signed a Castle Doctrine Bill. It went into effect the end of August!

Unless I mis-understand Castle Doctrine...that would relieve the defender of any criminal liability, because there is no "duty to retreat" which is GOOD to hear. But if there is no language about civil liability, it may not preclude the assailant's family from filing a frivolous lawsuit
 

ironmike86

New member
I would rather get sued than let the kid shoot me and rob me then get away. Maybe the kid will change his ways after being shot and thinking maybe he could have lost his life? Or he may just be another piece of crap in and out of the jail system. Who knows?
 

CapGun

New member
Unless I mis-understand Castle Doctrine...that would relieve the defender of any criminal liability, because there is no "duty to retreat" which is GOOD to hear. But if there is no language about civil liability, it may not preclude the assailant's family from filing a frivolous lawsuit

Language is included.
 

Terminal Lance

New member
In Indiana our castle doctrine (also no duty to retreat) clearly expresses that you will not be subjected to any legal or civil penalties. Obviously assuming you didn't make a mistake and shoot when you shouldnt have. However that's pretty hard to do here. Governor Daniels loves him some gun laws
 

BC1

,
You made some very good points but I don't think there is no grounds for any civil suit in this case. The victim shot the kid while trying to rob him. I hope the kid come out of this okay. Emotionally as well as physically.
As frivilous as a law suit sounds, many states do not bar the civil action based on Castle Doctrine or stand your-grund laws if the suit meets certain criteria, such as use of excessive force. Castle doctrine will not bar the suit in certain circumstances. If the perp can show a tort was committed against him, that he sustained damages as a result and that there exists a "close causal connection" between the two, he has a suit. With any luck the defendant will be successful in filing a motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgement in his favor. Many times the suit arises from the accusation that the victim used excessive force, above and beyond what was necessary to thwart the crime, and that such excessive harm caused the damages as defined in the Complaint and/or Bill of Particulars.
 

mrjam2jab

New member
As frivilous as a law suit sounds, many states do not bar the civil action based on Castle Doctrine or stand your-grund laws if the suit meets certain criteria, such as use of excessive force. Castle doctrine will not bar the suit in certain circumstances. If the perp can show a tort was committed against him, that he sustained damages as a result and that there exists a "close causal connection" between the two, he has a suit. With any luck the defendant will be successful in filing a motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgement in his favor. Many times the suit arises from the accusation that the victim used excessive force, above and beyond what was necessary to thwart the crime, and that such excessive harm caused the damages as defined in the Complaint and/or Bill of Particulars.

The wording of PA Act 10

§ 8340.2. Civil immunity for use of force.
(a) General rule.--An actor who uses force:
(1) in self-protection as provided in 18 Pa.C.S. § 505 (relating to use of force in self-protection);
(2) in the protection of other persons as provided in 18 Pa.C.S. § 506 (relating to use of force for the protection of other persons);
(3) for the protection of property as provided in 18 Pa.C.S. § 507 (relating to use of force for the protection of property);
(4) in law enforcement as provided in 18 Pa.C.S. § 508 (relating to use of force in law enforcement); or
(5) consistent with the actor's special responsibility for care, discipline or safety of others as provided in 18 Pa.C.S. § 509 (relating to use of force by persons with special responsibility for care, discipline or safety of others)
is justified in using such force and shall be immune from civil liability for personal injuries sustained by a perpetrator which were caused by the acts or omissions of the actor as a result of the use of force.
 

G50AE

Well-known member
Ok, that's a little wierd. I'm new. What's going on here?

I had added the "internet rambos" and "Sheepdog" search tags to this thread because internet ramboism and sheepdoggery were mentioned. Other comman search tags to add to threads as the topics come up are, "fud", "pointless bickering", "concealed means concealed", and the very popular one of "CCW Badges".
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,437
Messages
623,674
Members
74,276
Latest member
ForwardUntilDawn
Top