Oh brother

[Christians4LessGvt]

Former Marine's Actions Called Into Question

Family Of Subway Robbery Suspect Says
Customer Shouldn't Have Pulled Trigger

June 29, 2007

PLANTATION, Fla. -- The family of one of the men who was shot by a retired United States Marine
while they attempted to rob a Subway sandwich shop said the customer shouldn't have pulled the trigger.

According to Plantation police, two armed men barged into the Subway at 1949
Pine Island Road shortly after 11 p.m. Wednesday, demanding money from the employee behind
the counter. When they tried to force John Lovell into the bathroom, he pulled out a gun
and shot both men, police said.

Donicio Arrindell, 22, was shot in the head and later died at the hospital. Fredrick Gadson, 21, was
shot in the chest and ran from the Subway, but police found him in hiding in some bushes on the
property of a nearby BankAtlantic.


(Donicio Arrindell)

Lovell, 71, was the lone customer at the time. Police said he had a concealed weapons permit.

Gadson's grandparents told Local 10 on Thursday that Lovell was wrong for pulling the trigger.

"He should not have taken the law in his hands," said Rosa Jones, Gadson's grandmother.


(Rosa Jones)

Her husband, Ivory Jones, also condemned the media for its portrayal of Lovell's actions.

"I don't condone what they did, (but) I definitely don't condone the news people making him
out to seem like they're making a hero out of this man because he shot somebody down," he said.

But Lovell's neighbor said he made the right decision.

"He did the right thing," said Wendi Hill. "I mean, I was glad that it was them that got
shot and not him."

Police said Lovell, a retired Marine, wouldn't be charged.

http://www.local10.com/news/13594353/detail.html#

[Amianthus]

"He should not have taken the law in his hands," said Rosa Jones, Gadson's grandmother.

If they had not attempted an armed robbery, he would still be alive.

[Michael Tee]

I don't see any problem with shooting the guys.  And when you shoot, you'd best shoot to kill.  If you know what's good for you. 

[_JS]

This isn't so strange. The law in many states is that you are only allowed to respond with like force. While it may seem contrary to logic at times, it prevents shootings over simple assaults.

Even here in the South, where gun laws are often held in high esteem, proving self-defense and especially defense of others is often very difficult.

[Amianthus]

Two young men (aged 21 and 22) try to force a 71 year old man into a bathroom at gun point.

What's so hard to prove about self defense? Why would they want him to go into the bathroom unless they were going to hurt or kill him?

[Michael Tee]

<<The law in many states is that you are only allowed to respond with like force.>>

"Like force" sounds, with all due respect, like an unrealistic standard.  If two 20-somethings are muscling a 71-year-old, the 71-year-old can't do more than muscle the two 20-somethings?  The old guy would be dead by now.  They don't call handguns "equalizers" for nothing.  Here in Canada, you can respond with reasonable force and can be guilty of assault or presumably worse if you respond with "excessive" force.  What's reasonable or excessive depends entirely on all the circumstances.  Obviously in the case of the old man and the two punks, it was reasonable to shoot and reasonable also to shoot to kill.

Here in Ontario we had a case of a shop-keeper defending himself against two young robbers, apparently unarmed.  These were very bad guys with long records, assault, robbery, assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, the works.  The merchant killed the two of them.  Unfortunately for the merchant, the two guys were strangers to him and he knew nothing of their records when he killed them.  The Crown argued that he acted recklessly and with excessive force.  The jury acquitted  him anyway even if he didn't know exactly HOW dangerous the two punks were, it didn't matter.  He felt threatened and it turned out in the end he was right to feel that way.

[_JS]

Two young men (aged 21 and 22) try to force a 71 year old man into a bathroom at gun point.

What's so hard to prove about self defense? Why would they want him to go into the bathroom unless they were going to hurt or kill him?

I don't know if it will be particularly difficult in this instance or not. It may not be.

But, it is not always as easy as the media makes it out to be.

[_JS]

<<The law in many states is that you are only allowed to respond with like force.>>

"Like force" sounds, with all due respect, like an unrealistic standard.  If two 20-somethings are muscling a 71-year-old, the 71-year-old can't do more than muscle the two 20-somethings?  The old guy would be dead by now.  They don't call handguns "equalizers" for nothing.  Here in Canada, you can respond with reasonable force and can be guilty of assault or presumably worse if you respond with "excessive" force.  What's reasonable or excessive depends entirely on all the circumstances.  Obviously in the case of the old man and the two punks, it was reasonable to shoot and reasonable also to shoot to kill.

Here in Ontario we had a case of a shop-keeper defending himself against two young robbers, apparently unarmed.  These were very bad guys with long records, assault, robbery, assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, the works.  The merchant killed the two of them.  Unfortunately for the merchant, the two guys were strangers to him and he knew nothing of their records when he killed them.  The Crown argued that he acted recklessly and with excessive force.  The jury acquitted  him anyway even if he didn't know exactly HOW dangerous the two punks were, it didn't matter.  He felt threatened and it turned out in the end he was right to feel that way.

We've had very similar cases here. I think such things are certainly worth the time to investigate. Had the police discovered that the individual was threatened, as in the case you wrote about, then I don't see why they bother to take it to court. On the other hand, there was a case in Louisiana where a man shot and killed a Japanese exchange student who was simply at the wrong home for a Halloween Party. He couldn't understand English very well so he didn't understand that he was about to be shot and killed.

As I recall, the man was acquitted. So he basically got away with murder of a kid who never posed any threat at all to him, his home, or his family.

[Amianthus]

As I recall, the man was acquitted. So he basically got away with murder of a kid who never posed any threat at all to him, his home, or his family.

I believe you left out a few crucial details.

[_JS]

As I recall, the man was acquitted. So he basically got away with murder of a kid who never posed any threat at all to him, his home, or his family.

I believe you left out a few crucial details.

I don't doubt it, it was a few years back. But you must admit that it was most certainly not reasonable force.

[Amianthus]

I don't doubt it, it was a few years back. But you must admit that it was most certainly not reasonable force.

I do not admit that.

[Xavier_Onassis]

It is normal for the relative of a thug to claim that excessive force was used. Had her grandson been a victim, she would have no doubt celebrated that the aggressors got shot.

Taking the law into one's hands certainly makes sense when one is defending oneself in this case, because there were no other hands available.

It is nice to know that the old dude will not be charged.

[Michael Tee]

<<As I recall, the man was acquitted. So he basically got away with murder of a kid who never posed any threat at all to him, his home, or his family.>>

Yeah, I remember that very well.  All the guy had to do was slam the door in the kid's face and call the cops.  The acquittal was a travesty.

[Amianthus]

Yeah, I remember that very well.  All the guy had to do was slam the door in the kid's face and call the cops.  The acquittal was a travesty.

You left out a few pertinent details as well.

[Michael Tee]

<<You left out a few pertinent details as well.>>

Like what?