NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/broward/sfl-flbsubway30sbjun30,0,6526371.story?coll=sfla-news-broward

This guy is all over the news in South Florida. Except for the grandmother of the now dead criminal, everybody seems to be supporting him. I just hope he isn't subjected to some ridiculous civil suit.

Did he save his own life and the lives of the employee? I guess we will never know, but it's good to see somebody realizes that the gov't cannot protect the citizenry 24/7.

I mildy regret that dead dumbasses can't learn from their mistakes. But thems the breaks. *nod*

That guy deserves a medal.

Sounds like the guy was within his rights.

well I could point out that lives aren't worth money but this is America different game and such...

who the hell robs a subway anyways?!:p

At such a moment I tend to miss Eutrusca a bit :(

who the hell robs a subway anyways?!:p

That's what I was thinking. :p

I hope John Dillinger gives that guy a kick in the teeth when he shows up at orientation in Hell. A Subway, for God's sake. :p

I hope John Dillinger gives that guy a kick in the teeth when he shows up at orientation in Hell. A Subway, for God's sake. :p

pfft he should just have to eat those crappy triangle sandwiches for eternity, the kind where you can never get a sandwich without some crap ruining it and you destroy the sandwiches form trying to open the packet!

I think the motive was a rampant subway addiction anyways:p

People dying sucks, but I guess it could have gone worse.

*cowers for fear that he might be smoten for daring to suggest that killing criminals isn't always ok* :p

Police have charged Arrindell with felony murder and armed robbery. Under Florida law, anyone who commits a felony such as armed robbery resulting in death can be charged with murder.

Wasn't Arrindell the only death?

Wasn't Arrindell the only death?

It was probably a typo. I bet the newspaper meant that Gadson would be charged.

well I could point out that lives aren't worth money but this is America different game and such...

who the hell robs a subway anyways?!:p

Lovell thought he was about to be executed (at least, the article quotes a police statement that mentions such), so he was defending his life, not the money.

Lovell thought he was about to be executed (at least, the article quotes a police statement that mentions such), so he was defending his life, not the money.

yeah he was pushing the guy into the ladies to execute him, because thats the place you execute people! :rolleyes:

either way don't be silly this is America I don't want to debate this when our subways don't have restrooms and thus I have no idea what happens in them

100% Righteous. Semper Fi!

Dumbasses got what was coming to 'em.

love this, even without him being a former marine the fact that two young criminals thought they would push around a 71 year old man, and that the 71 year old man had the final say is amazing.

People dying sucks, but I guess it could have gone worse.

*cowers for fear that he might be smoten for daring to suggest that killing criminals isn't always ok* :p

Nah. The dead guy deserved it. It appears he was planning to work the old over if not kill him....

See, this is why we have CCW in the States.

yeah he was pushing the guy into the ladies to execute him, because thats the place you execute people! :rolleyes:

either way don't be silly this is America I don't want to debate this when our subways don't have restrooms and thus I have no idea what happens in them

If you were in a situation where you were being robbed (like in the story under discussion), and after giving the robber(s) all the money you have, they start to force you towards a secluded area at gunpoint, there's really not a lot of reasons for them to do that (and each reason is pretty bad). One reason would be rape, the other would be execution.

pfft he should just have to eat those crappy triangle sandwiches for eternity, the kind where you can never get a sandwich without some crap ruining it and you destroy the sandwiches form trying to open the packet!

I think the motive was a rampant subway addiction anyways:p

Triangle sandwiches? Are you talking about the ones you get at subway stations? Subway is the name of a restaurant chain that specializes in subs

Triangle sandwiches? Are you talking about the ones you get at subway stations? Subway is the name of a restaurant chain that specializes in subs

I think this is approximately what is being referred to: http://www.maison-de-stuff.net/archives/pictures/sandwich.jpg

That, and any other prepackaged triangle sandwiches.

I think this is approximately what is being referred to: http://www.maison-de-stuff.net/archives/pictures/sandwich.jpg

That, and any other prepackaged triangle sandwiches.

Yeah, I've had those on trains and at train stations in Europe, but they don't sell them at Subway, at least not the Subways we have in the Boston area. Could be different elsewhere.

Yeah, I've had those on trains and at train stations in Europe, but they don't sell them at Subway, at least not the Subways we have in the Boston area. Could be different elsewhere.

They don't sell them at Subway. I think Call to power was referring to them as a punishment in hell for the dead criminal.

They don't sell them at Subway. I think Call to power was referring to them as a punishment in hell for the dead criminal.

Ok, my bad. That is a pretty good punishment either way

well I could point out that lives aren't worth money but this is America different game and such...

who the hell robs a subway anyways?!:p

Someone here robbed an Arbys...a frickin Arbys!

yeah he was pushing the guy into the ladies to execute him, because thats the place you execute people! :rolleyes:

A completrely reasonable assumption.

To quote Florida statute:
782.02 Justifiable use of deadly force.--The use of deadly force is justifiable when a person is resisting any attempt to murder such person or to commit any felony upon him or her or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person shall be.
[1 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0782/SEC02.HTM&Title=-%3E2006-%3ECh0782-%3ESection%2002#0782.02)]

either way don't be silly this is America I don't want to debate this when our subways don't have restrooms and thus I have no idea what happens in them

Can you put that in English please?

The Gunny would be proud.

Pwned.

Subway staff: "Hello sirs! What may I serve you with tonight?"
Punk 1: "This is a gun"
Subway staff: "Ha ha. May I serve you sir?"
Punk 2: "You heard him. It's a fucking gun."
Subway staff: "Okay. It's a gun. Only ... may I serve either of you gentlemen?"
Punk 1: "Give us the money from the till."
Subway staff: "My boss would kill me if I did that."
Punk 2: "Give the motherfucker the motherfucking money or he'll fucking you know ..."
Punk 1: "Yeah, what he said. Give us the money."
Ex-Marine: "Would you guys mind ordering? I'm waiting here."
Punk 2: "What you say, old guy? We're not fucking ordering! We want the money!"
Ex-Marine: "If you aren't going to order, get the fuck out of the way."
Punk 1: "Oh, yeah? What about I shoot you, old man?"
Ex-Marine: "That isn't a gun. It's a shitty little plastic toy."
Punk 1: "Let's go, Freddy. This ain't working."
Punk 2: "You fucking crazy old fuck, what would you know. Shoot him, Donny!"
Punk 1: "Um ..."
Ex-Marine: "Can I order now? Since you guys don't want food and don't have a gun?"
Punk 2: "Fuck you asshole. Get in there or I'll shoot you."
Ex-Marine: "Er, that's the Ladies. There might be a woman in there. No."
Punk 2: "You fucking old ****! You asshole motherfucker smartass ****! Shoot him, Donny!"
Ex-Marine: "Screw this. I ain't going in the Ladies, and I'm fucking hungry!"
(Pulls out gun, shoots everybody in sight.)
Ex-Marine: "Now, I want a seafood delight, footlong, with mustard instead of that mayo stuff. Er, hello?"
Subway employee (from floor behind counter): "You're a fucking hero man. Would you prefer French, English, Mild English, or American mustard?"

They deserved to die just for stealing from an old person.

They deserved to die just for stealing from an old person.

I'm not saying I wred the article. Well, I think I did, but I could be wrong on account of how I'm all drunk and it's insanely windy outside, which allways makes me think worse ...

OK, I tried one more time. Taking his money was pretty low ... but seven shots? Not self defence. $500 and going into the female rest-room, vs two lives? Nuh.

Arggh. They held up a Subway? Yeah, they deserve to die for not learning their FUCKING TIMES TABLES! I've been in a Subway less than ten times, but I think it takes about 3-5 minutes to serve a customer. 10 hours x (customer every 4 mins)=15 customers/hour x $5 per order = $750. Double for two staff. Double for fancy orders.

So now I"m really confused. If a bandit would threaten another person's life for $750, or $1500, does that mean their own life is valued at that? Or do we need to divide by how serious they were in making their threat?

Good job Lovell.

Those two probably thought that Subway is an easy mark... that and the munchies drives them to.

I prefer R U Hungry sandwiches, though going to Rutgers just to get is clearly out of the question.

They deserved to die just for stealing from an old person.

Nope. Two idiots initiated an act of deadly force which backfired, causing the death of one of them.

My aunt was robbed at a Subway. She's somewhat scatterbrained so when the guy came in and started robbing the store, she didn't realize what was going on. He came over to her and demanded her purse. She said she didn't want to give it to him but maybe she had a few dollars she could give him. She started digging through her purse until the cops arrived and arrested the guy.

My aunt was robbed at a Subway. She's somewhat scatterbrained so when the guy came in and started robbing the store, she didn't realize what was going on. He came over to her and demanded her purse. She said she didn't want to give it to him but maybe she had a few dollars she could give him. She started digging through her purse until the cops arrived and arrested the guy.

I don't know how old your aunt is, but I've got this image of an old lady counting out exact change to a guy holding a gun on her...ten dollars and 26 cents, ten dollars and twenty seven cents ... Oh, here's another quarter! Ten dollars and 52 cents...

Nope. Two idiots initiated an act of deadly force which backfired, causing the death of one of them.

Nope my ass. I know only one of them died, but both shoudl´ve had been shot to death.

The first got 7 rounds, the other got one. He should´ve had been shot more.

Nope my ass. I know only one of them died, but both shoudl´ve had been shot to death.

The first got 7 rounds, the other got one. He should´ve had been shot more.

And thieves should have their hands cut off too :rolleyes:

I don't know how old your aunt is, but I've got this image of an old lady counting out exact change to a guy holding a gun on her...ten dollars and 26 cents, ten dollars and twenty seven cents ... Oh, here's another quarter! Ten dollars and 52 cents...

That's exactly what happened.

Nope my ass. I know only one of them died, but both shoudl´ve had been shot to death.

The first got 7 rounds, the other got one. He should´ve had been shot more.

LOL

I thought you were being sarcastic. Since you weren't, double nope. Justafiable homocide when someone has initiated the use of deadly force is acceptable. Extra-judicial execution for mere theft is not.

The guy who was killed was charged with murder for his own death. That is hilarious.

I don't know how some people can think that if you give armed men your money and they start moving you to an isolated area, they are not going to execute (or rape) you. Do they think robbers are going to engage in a counseling session with their victims or just play hopscotch for a while?

People dying sucks, but I guess it could have gone worse.

*cowers for fear that he might be smoten for daring to suggest that killing criminals isn't always ok* :p

And what was Lovell being forced in the back for? A round of kumbaya?

This man should be awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

There was another incident a few weeks ago where an elderly former Marine beat the crap out of a pickpocket.

Moral of the stories; Don't fuck with old farts, especially if they are veterans.

The guy who was killed was charged with murder for his own death. That is hilarious.

I don't know how some people can think that if you give armed men your money and they start moving you to an isolated area, they are not going to execute (or rape) you. Do they think robbers are going to engage in a counseling session with their victims or just play hopscotch for a while?

I think you misread it, or I did. I was under the impression that the guy who was wounded was charged with the murder of his buddy -- since the death happened in commission of an armed felony.

Ok, I misread it. But they don't have any charges listed for Gadson -- perhaps both were charged with armed robbery and felony murder?

Thank God for concealed-carry permits!

Hope Arrindell drank a nice icy drink before he got plugged, 'cause it's hot and dry where he's hanging out now. No more "chillin' wit da boyz" for you, punk :gundge:

Awesome! :D

Thank God for concealed-carry permits!

Yes thank god for them, now one more person is dead because of them...Hooray. :rolleyes:

Then again, in a culture prevalent there getting rid of guns would be harder than giving everyone a concealed gun to "defend" against concealed gun crime in the first place.

I also genuinely wonder why people are not standing up for the rights of the muslim terrorists to defend against "stealing infidel westerners"? :D

In the end, Lovell had fatally wounded Arrindell and shot Gadson, who was in stable condition Friday at Broward General Medical Center, police said.

Police have charged Arrindell with felony murder and armed robbery. Under Florida law, anyone who commits a felony such as armed robbery resulting in death can be charged with murder.

This is clearly a typo.

Other articles on the subject state that Gadson was cahrged.

Gadson was charged with armed robbery and murder. Police said Gadson got charged with murder because, even though he did not shoot Arrindell, someone was killed while Gadson was allegedly committing a felony.
http://www.nbc6.net/news/13585506/detail.html?dl=mainclick

And while Gadson's family tries to see him at Broward General Medical Center -- where he is under police guard and has been charged with armed robbery and murder in the commission of a crime -- Arrindell's family is traveling back from vacation in Dominica to plan his funeral.
http://www.miamiherald.com/467/story/156261.html

Yes thank god for them, now one more person is dead because of them...

Nope. One person is alive because of of the CCW permit.

The dead man is dead because he foolishly initiated the use of deadly force in a situation which allowed another to then legal protect himself.

Yes thank god for them, now one more person is dead because of them...Hooray. :rolleyes::D

No, that scumbag is dead because he tried to use violence to rob innocent people.

Yes thank god for them, now one more person is dead because of them...Hooray. :rolleyes:

One more G who thought he could kill an old man and got what he asked for. :mp5: Yes, Hooray!

Then again, in a culture prevalent there getting rid of guns would be harder than giving everyone a concealed gun to "defend" against concealed gun crime in the first place.

It was self-defense, regardless of your disdain for the concept and your apparent willingness to die like a dog in such a situation. The fact that the concept of self-defense has to be justified to you is just sad.

I also genuinely wonder why people are not standing up for the rights of the muslim terrorists to defend against "stealing infidel westerners"? :D

Plenty of them do. Doesn't make it so.

Technically it is grounds for manslaughter but as it's on the grounds of self-defense, seems to me it's fair enough though I believe the way to rid of the firearms debate is to simply not let guns to be held by citizens in the first place.

Nope. One person is alive because of of the CCW permit.I was under the impression the criminals also had a "revealed" concealed gun. :D

And, also, one person is dead: Committing a crime doesn't lessen a value of a life.

I was under the impression the criminals also had a "revealed" concealed gun. :D

And, also, one person is dead: Committing a crime doesn't lessen a value of a life.

It doesn't lessen the value of the life but if it's the choice between an innocent life and the assailants life then it is fair to say that the assailant has dibs on death

I'm not sure why everyone is congratulating the guy. Sure, he stopped an armed robbery, but he also killed a guy. An armed robber takes a gun to intimidate people not kill them, they don't want a murder charge on top of the robbery one if they get caught, so there's no way the guy was pushing the old man into the toilets to 'execute him'.

I'm not sure why everyone is congratulating the guy. Sure, he stopped an armed robbery, but he also killed a guy. An armed robber takes a gun to intimidate people not kill them, they don't want a murder charge on top of the robbery one if they get caught, so there's no way the guy was pushing the old man into the toilets to 'execute him'.

You have proof I assume? I'm not congratulating his killing a man. I'm congratulating his bravery and clear headedness in defending himself

It doesn't lessen the value of the life but if it's the choice between an innocent life and the assailants life then it is fair to say that the assailant has dibs on death

There should be no choice necessary.

It's these kinds of values that contribute to the brutality of gun culture in certain countries: If you predispose yourself that killing someone threatening your property is good and acceptable then the criminal is entitled to think similarly about your property. ;)

(note: There's nothing wrong in owning a gun as long as the user is responsible enough to *not* use it against another person).

It's these kinds of values that contribute to the brutality of gun culture in certain countries: If you predispose yourself that killing someone threatening your property is good and acceptable then the criminal is entitled to think similarly about your property. ;)

That makes no sense. Criminals prey on the people least capable of defending themselves, the ones who don't have the means to defend themselves or their property adequately. If you're clearly heavily armed and capable of defending yourself, there's a very low chance you'll be the victim of a crime.

There should be no choice necessary.

It's these kinds of values that contribute to the brutality of gun culture in certain countries: If you predispose yourself that killing someone threatening your property is good and acceptable then the criminal is entitled to think similarly about your property. ;)

(note: There's nothing wrong in owning a gun as long as the user is responsible enough to *not* use it against another person).

I have never said that I should have the right to kill someone for taking my property. I said that I should have the right to defend my own life

There shouldn't be a choice necessary ( in a perfect world ) but unfortunately in a situation like this where the gentleman believed he was going to be killed, it is a necessary choice

You have proof I assume?

Of course not, I'm speculating with what seems the most rational thing.

I'm not congratulating his killing a man. I'm congratulating his bravery and clear headedness in defending himself

Not quite clear headedness. If he'd been thinking clearly he would have been able (considering his background and training) to make disabling shots, not lethal ones. He shot several times more than necessary. His fear for his life seems groundless to me, a guy with a gun is not automatically wanting to kill anyone.

It was just an error in the article. The surviving criminal will be charged with felony murder.

Of course not, I'm speculating with what seems the most rational thing.



Not quite clear headedness. If he'd been thinking clearly he would have been able (considering his background and training) to make disabling shots, not lethal ones. He shot several times more than necessary.

His training is to aim for the torso and abdomen as the largest target. Nevermind the fact that his success depended on his moving fast enough to draw his gun from his holster and fire before the gunman (with his weapon already drawn, giving him an advantage) fired on him. A clear head doesn't endow you with superhuman capabilities. Rather than cowering and begging for his life he made a conscious decision to fight back. A decision I find admirable. If you think you could have done better you're entitled to that opinion but I too can speculate and say that this isn't the case

His training is to aim for the torso and abdomen as the largest target. Nevermind the fact that his success depended on his moving fast enough to draw his gun from his holster and fire before the gunman (with his weapon already drawn, giving him an advantage) fired on him. A clear head doesn't endow you with superhuman capabilities. Rather than cowering and begging for his life he made a conscious decision to fight back. A decision I find admirable. If you think you could have done better you're entitled to that opinion but I too can speculate and say that this isn't the case

Fair enough. I have not been in such a situation, but considering I do not have or plan to carry a weapon or knife with me, I will never be able to cause that kind of damage.

“Distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful” Nietzsche

To be frank, the fact that anyone could revel in another's death nauseates me. That it was self defense seems acceptable; that random people from the internet should gloat over someone's painful death horrifying. Perhaps you think this death will serve some teleological purpose and deter other would be criminals; but of course if this were the case, there would be no more murders due to the death penalty. In short, perhaps everyone happy over this should reconsider.

“Distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful” Nietzsche

To be frank, the fact that anyone could revel in another's death nauseates me. That it was self defense seems acceptable; that random people from the internet should gloat over someone's painful death horrifying. Perhaps you think this death will serve some teleological purpose and deter other would be criminals; but of course if this were the case, there would be no more murders due to the death penalty. In short, perhaps everyone happy over this should reconsider.

If they are happy for the reasons you have given I wouldn't disagree but the fact stands that those aren't the only reasons to be happy about this situation. I am happy that this man stood up to those who intended him harm (in his mind, at that time, at least).

I was under the impression the criminals also had a "revealed" concealed gun.

An illegal one. Which was being used in the commission of a crime, which is the very definition of the initiation of deadly force.

I'm not sure why everyone is congratulating the guy. Sure, he stopped an armed robbery, but he also killed a guy. An armed robber takes a gun to intimidate people not kill them, they don't want a murder charge on top of the robbery one if they get caught, so there's no way the guy was pushing the old man into the toilets to 'execute him'.

An armed robber takes a firearm because it is a deadly weapon and constitutes deadly force. responding in kind in self defense is entierly acceptable.

Not quite clear headedness. If he'd been thinking clearly he would have been able (considering his background and training) to make disabling shots, not lethal ones.


There's no such thing as a "disabling shot". That only exists in the imaginations of movie directors and people like yourself who belive that film=real life. Come back and talk about this when you actually know more about the use of firearms than what you see in movies.


He shot several times more than necessary.

Not at all. Once the shooting starts, it doesn't stop until the target stops. This usually means empting the magazine.

His fear for his life seems groundless to me, a guy with a gun is not automatically wanting to kill anyone.

Incorrect yet again. If you knew dot about firearms, you'd know that it is entierly reasonable to assume that when someone points a gun at you they fully intend to use it on you. This is the single most basic rules of firearms - never point a firearm at anything you don't intend to shoot.

Fair enough. I have not been in such a situation, but considering I do not have or plan to carry a weapon or knife with me, I will never be able to cause that kind of damage.

You might well be dead now if you were in Lovell's shoes. That is your choice, which is to be respected. Just as it was his choice not to die, which must also be respected.

I have never said that I should have the right to kill someone for taking my property. I said that I should have the right to defend my own life

Let's see...we have a marine who probably didn't want to give his possessions away which led to a murder. Now, I know this is speculation but how do you think the scenario would've played out if the marine wouldn't have had a gun along? My guess is few dollars stolen, possibly several bruises but no deaths.

Then again, who in their right minds would bring a gun to a Subway robbery? :rolleyes:

There shouldn't be a choice necessary ( in a perfect world )Weird how you'd label most of Europe a perfect world (just check gun crime numbers leading to one or multiple deaths from various European countries) :p

One important thing to note is that the *prevalency* of gun as such doesn't have much to do with the issue of gun related crime (see eg. status in Switzerland (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm))

My guess is that only with proper training & education about the ethics, responsibilities and effects of gun use can you avoid the abysmally horrid (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6562529.stm) (see the bottom part of the page) situation of the States as the rational alternative - taking the guns away - is not a possibility....yet :(

An illegal one. Which was being used in the commission of a crime, which is the very definition of the initiation of deadly force.

How can you tell a legally conealed weapon from illegally concealed weapon? :cool:

How can you tell a legally conealed weapon from illegally concealed weapon?

Easily. The person carrying the legal one had the legally required permit for it.

Let's see...we have a marine who probably didn't want to give his possessions away which led to a murder. Now, I know this is speculation but how do you think the scenario would've played out if the marine wouldn't have had a gun along? My guess is few dollars stolen, possibly several bruises but no deaths.

Weird how you'd label most of Europe a perfect world (just check gun crime numbers leading to one or multiple deaths from various European countries) :p



You assume that my position is related specifically to the right to carry a concealed gun. I extend it, however, to the right to defend your life as best you can, using any method you can. If that requires killing another person I would like to think that I would be able to do so. My statement "in a perfect world" should be read as "in a world where your life is never threatened by others"

You're right when you say that you are speculating about the possible outcome of the situation had the gentleman had no weapon. You are welcome to that speculation and should you find yourself in a similar situation by all means act on it but personally I feel that it was a rational response to assume that his life was about to be threatened.

Let's see...we have a marine who probably didn't want to give his possessions away which led to a murder.

Did you read the article? The guy he shot was pointing a firearm at him. The only reason to do that is to kill someone. He was in immenent danger of being killed, not robbed

Did you read the article? The guy he shot was pointing a firearm at him. The only reason to do that is to kill someone. He was in immenent danger of being killed, not robbed

There are other reasons to point a gun at someone. Possibly not to kill them but to intimidate them instead. It doesn't help the argument to ignore other possibilities

Easily. The person carrying the legal one had the legally required permit for it.

I think you missed my point: If the gun is concealed there's no way to tell if a person is carrying a gun therefore the legality of the (concealed) gun is completely meaningless (unless you're stopped & searched by some law enforcement agency).

I think you missed my point: If the gun is concealed there's no way to tell if a person is carrying a gun therefore the legality of the (concealed) gun is completely meaningless (unless you're stopped & searched by some law enforcement agency).

I think that is the point in itself. I don't think anyone argued that legal CCW permits reduce the number of illegally concealed weapons

There are other reasons to point a gun at someone. Possibly not to kill them but to intimidate them instead. It doesn't help the argument to ignore other possibilities

Actually no, there is no reason to point a firearm at someone you aren't willing to shoot to kill. As I said before, the most fundamental rule of firearms is don't point at what you aren't willing to shoot. The obvious corallary is that if you point a firearm at someone, you are ready to shoot them.

Actually no, there is no reason to point a firearm at someone you aren't willing to shoot to kill. As I said before, the most fundamental rule of firearms is don't point at what you aren't willing to shoot. The obvious corallary is that if you point a firearm at someone, you are ready to shoot them.

In your opinion there is no other reason to point a weapon at someone (I'm guessing because of weapons training?). It is very possible to ignore such a widespread rule and only use a weapon to intimidate someone. That doesn't mean that you wouldn't change that view to a more lethal one if challenged, but it is still possible no matter how much you ignore it

I think you missed my point: If the gun is concealed there's no way to tell if a person is carrying a gun therefore the legality of the (concealed) gun is completely meaningless (unless you're stopped & searched by some law enforcement agency).

You started this with a statement that robber was dead due to a legally concealed weapon. This is still untrue. He died because he was using an illegally concealed weapon in the commission of a crime, with the intent to kill.

In your opinion there is no other reason to point a weapon at someone (I'm guessing because of weapons training?).

Absolutely so. For the third or fourth time, you only pointy a fire arm at something you are willing to shoot.

It is very possible to ignore such a widespread rule and only use a weapon to intimidate someone.

That "intimidation" comes from the perceived willingness to shoot.

That doesn't mean that you wouldn't change that view to a more lethal one if challenged, but it is still possible no matter how much you ignore it

Sorry, I didn't quite catch your meaning there...

That "intimidation" comes from the perceived willingness to shoot.



That is the perception of the target rather than the actual willingness of the assailant to shoot. It's a gamble for the assailant that they won't have to use the gun. A shortsighted one i'd add


Sorry, I didn't quite catch your meaning there...

Sorry it is a bit inelegant in hindsight. What I mean to say is that the original intention of the assailant could be simply to intimidate. They may, shortsightedly, believe that they won't have to use it. It is highly believable, to me anyway, that someone could fool themselves into that kind of thought. When they are resisted however, and face injury or imprisonment as a result, then the whole self defense idea may arise. They may feel that their hand has been forced and they have to move from a position of intimidation to one where they are willing to shoot to save themselves.

I agree with you that it is a bad idea to assume this is the case, since you're gambling with your life, but it is still arguable that the initial intention of using a weapon in a robbery is intimidation rather than murder

That is the perception of the target rather than the actual willingness of the assailant to shoot. It's a gamble for the assailant that they won't have to use the gun. A shortsighted one i'd add



Sorry it is a bit inelegant in hindsight. What I mean to say is that the original intention of the assailant could be simply to intimidate. They may, shortsightedly, believe that they won't have to use it. It is highly believable, to me anyway, that someone could fool themselves into that kind of thought. When they are resisted however, and face injury or imprisonment as a result, then the whole self defense idea may arise. They may feel that their hand has been forced and they have to move from a position of intimidation to one where they are willing to shoot to save themselves.

I agree with you that it is a bad idea to assume this is the case, since you're gambling with your life, but it is still arguable that the initial intention of using a weapon in a robbery is intimidation rather than murder

You're making a distinction that I don't consider to exist. The simple act of using a gun to intimidate someone is a willingness to use it to kill them.

One doesn't use a firearm to intimidate without an intent to use it at some basl leve if one's will is circumvented. (Or, in plainer English, you don't take a gun if, at some level, you haven't already made a decision to use it.)

Not quite clear headedness. If he'd been thinking clearly he would have been able (considering his background and training) to make disabling shots, not lethal ones. He shot several times more than necessary. His fear for his life seems groundless to me, a guy with a gun is not automatically wanting to kill anyone.

He's a marine not a police officer. Marines are trained to kill wjile police are trained to disable.

If you think about it, the MArine did disable him.

Of course not, I'm speculating with what seems the most rational thing.

So, basically what you're saying is, you're guessing.

Not quite clear headedness. If he'd been thinking clearly he would have been able (considering his background and training) to make disabling shots, not lethal ones. He shot several times more than necessary.

Shooting to wound is shooting to miss. Also, the only time you should fire your weapon, is when you're ready to destroy (kill, in this instance) whatever you're shooting at. If you feel the need to shoot to wound, you shouldn't shoot.

His fear for his life seems groundless to me, a guy with a gun is not automatically wanting to kill anyone.

After the victim complied and gave the robbers all the money he had, one of them tried to force him into the bathroom. What other reason could the robber have had, other than rape or execution, to do this?

Let's see...we have a marine who probably didn't want to give his possessions away which led to a murder. Now, I know this is speculation but how do you think the scenario would've played out if the marine wouldn't have had a gun along? My guess is few dollars stolen, possibly several bruises but no deaths.

Then again, who in their right minds would bring a gun to a Subway robbery? :rolleyes:

Did you even read the article? The victim (Lovell) gave the criminals all the money he had. It wasn't until one of the robbers tried to force Lovell into the women's bathroom that Lovell drew his weapon.

police are trained to disable.

No they're not, not with firearms anyway. Police are taught that if they're going to use their firearm they are to aim for center mass and kill their target. It's not to say they're supposed to "finish them off" when they're injured, but they're supposed to try to kill that person with one shot.

The reason for shooting to kill and not to disable is that someone as severely injured as that can be extremely dangerous. Humans have the same "fight or flight" reaction that everything else has. Often if one is too injured to actually flee the "flight" will consist of retreating inside oneself and going into "possum mode" rather than a physical flight. However, the "fight" response can make someone extremely desperate and unpredictable and a desperate, irrational person is extremely dangerous. Having spent a year in Iraq I've seen both sorts of reactions, and you never can tell what is going to happen.

However, I will state that it is a terrible thing that the young man died. However, given the situation the older man decided that the least worst thing to do was kill him before he could hurt anyone else. It's certainly not good, but it's less bad than it could have been.

He's a marine not a police officer. Marines are trained to kill wjile police are trained to disable.

If you think about it, the MArine did disable him.

Absolutely not. There is no such thing as a disabling shot, outside of TV-land and movie-land. In real life, police are trained to shoot center-mass - ie the middle of the torso - as that's the only way to put down an agressor.

Interesting. I'm glad he stopped the crime...I just wish it hadn't resulted in the death of one of the perpetrators. They really should have both had the chance to be rehabilitated, paying their debt to society and becoming better people so they wouldn't have to rob Subways and all that stuff.

As for why someone would rob a Subway...Why not? They're usually quite small but that have lots of cash on hand, and these days when even small Wendy's restaurants up in the mountains have safes that can only be opened on a timelock or other method that is difficult to break, on-hand cash is a very important thing to someone trying to garner it quickly.

Technically it is grounds for manslaughter but as it's on the grounds of self-defense, seems to me it's fair enough though I believe the way to rid of the firearms debate is to simply not let guns to be held by citizens in the first place.

Too bad about the pesky Second Amendment letting US citizens own guns, innit?

Of course not, I'm speculating with what seems the most rational thing.



Not quite clear headedness. If he'd been thinking clearly he would have been able (considering his background and training) to make disabling shots, not lethal ones. He shot several times more than necessary. His fear for his life seems groundless to me, a guy with a gun is not automatically wanting to kill anyone.

Once you pull the gun out, you do NOT go for disabling shots. You go for the largest body mass. That's the first thing they teach. Why?

Legs and arms are easy to miss, and the shot to disable is a tv and movie myth.

Let's see...we have a marine who probably didn't want to give his possessions away which led to a murder.
Did you bother to read the article? He handed over his money. It was not until AFTER he'd given up his possessions that they attempted to back him into the toilet.

Now, I know this is speculation but how do you think the scenario would've played out if the marine wouldn't have had a gun along? My guess is few dollars stolen, possibly several bruises but no deaths.
Tell that to these peoples' families:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE4DC123EF93AA25757C0A964958260
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04E0DF173DF935A25753C1A9649C8B63
http://www.wnbc.com/news/10192686/detail.html?subid=10101421
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/30/national/main2867606.shtml
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2006/07/21/1692870.htm
http://www.crimedoctor.com/robbery2.htm

He's a marine not a police officer. Marines are trained to kill wjile police are trained to disable.

If you think about it, the MArine did disable him.

No, police are NOT trained to disable. They too are trained to kill.

“Distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful” Nietzsche

To be frank, the fact that anyone could revel in another's death nauseates me.

I've got a barf bag for you, right here :rolleyes:

That it was self defense seems acceptable; that random people from the internet should gloat over someone's painful death horrifying. Perhaps you think this death will serve some teleological purpose and deter other would be criminals; but of course if this were the case, there would be no more murders due to the death penalty. In short, perhaps everyone happy over this should reconsider.

The ones who should reconsider are the ones crying their little eyes out over a dead robber. The amount of nonsense spewed in favor of this clown and against gun-owners and concealed-carry permits is literally incredible. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

I've got a barf bag for you, right here :rolleyes:



The ones who should reconsider are the ones crying their little eyes out over a dead robber. The amount of nonsense spewed in favor of this clown and against gun-owners and concealed-carry permits is literally incredible. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

It's ok to show some compassion for other human beings you know. Don't worry, it won't undermine your masculinity or anything. We'll still love you :)

Absolutely not. There is no such thing as a disabling shot, outside of TV-land and movie-land. In real life, police are trained to shoot center-mass - ie the middle of the torso - as that's the only way to put down an agressor.

That's true - it seems like the misconception that will never die. :p The whole "why not just shoot the gun out of his hand?" moaning is nothing new. From the article, it didn't look like the old man was rash when he shot, but rather complied at first - I doubt he set out that day to shoot anyone, so I wouldn't hold it against him that he did.

That's true - it seems like the misconception that will never die. :p The whole "why not just shoot the gun out of his hand?" moaning is nothing new. From the article, it didn't look like the old man was rash when he shot, but rather complied at first - I doubt he set out that day to shoot anyone, so I wouldn't hold it against him that he did.

I saw a police video where a sharpshooter actually did shoot a gun out of someone's hand. After the guy was arrested, he actually complemented the sharpshooter on the skill of his shot.

But I'm pretty sure most people know that cops will shoot to kill. That's why suicide by cop exists...

It's ok to show some compassion for other human beings you know. Don't worry, it won't undermine your masculinity or anything. We'll still love you :)

Well, thanks for the validation. ;)

I reserve my compassion for those who deserve it. All this misplaced sympathy for a dead robber just makes me laugh.

And, also, one person is dead: Committing a crime doesn't lessen a value of a life.

And the defendant's life had no value? I don't endorse a gun nut culture, but I wouldn't have cared less if he had stabbed the guy to death with a spork.

According to him, he believed his life was at risk, and that the only way to preserve it was by disabling or killing his assailants. That said assailants were armed and in the process of committing a crime only lends credence to his words.

It's a violent world we live in, and if you want to live, sometimes you must take action in self defense that may take the lives of others who threaten yours in a clear and direct manner.

Or maybe I can club you to death with a iron pipe and you wouldn't complain?

Let's see...we have a marine who probably didn't want to give his possessions away which led to a murder.

You fail at reading comprehension. Read the article. He did give his money away. He was still being led to a secluded area under threat of death. Don't tell me "he wasn't going to use the gun". You do not threaten people with firearms in the process of committing a crime because you're threatening to tickle them to death.

There are other reasons to point a gun at someone. Possibly not to kill them but to intimidate them instead. It doesn't help the argument to ignore other possibilities

The intimidation is pretty much based off a threat to life and limb. It'd be the same story if the guy had been wielding a chainsaw and wearing a hockey mask.

I mean, how much intimidation would you get if you pointed a legal document at some random guy and went "give me your money or I'll sue"?

That is the perception of the target rather than the actual willingness of the assailant to shoot. It's a gamble for the assailant that they won't have to use the gun. A shortsighted one i'd add


Huh, so you'd gamble on not being shot? I think a lot of Virginia Tech students gambled that too, hiding under their desks. Fat lot of good that did them.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

If you want to threaten people's lives with weapons, there is no problem when someone kills you in self defense.

It's ok to show some compassion for other human beings you know. Don't worry, it won't undermine your masculinity or anything. We'll still love you :)

I feel sorry for the families of the dead wrongdoers, they have to go through a lot of pain and suffering now on the account of their relatives' actions.

What happened to the actual robbers though was the legitimate and appropriate consequence of their actions.

I reserve my compassion for those who deserve it. All this misplaced sympathy for a dead robber just makes me laugh.

Sympathy? Who the heck's talking about that. It's the gloating that's being looked down on. Makes people as judgmental as a Phelpian.

... "give me your money or I'll sue"

I don't know about anyone else, but that strikes me as hilarious. It's something I'd put in my sig, if I had one. :D

Ooorah! Just make sure you don't say ex-Marine or else they'll be cleaning you up :).

well I could point out that lives aren't worth money but this is America different game and such...

who the hell robs a subway anyways?!:p

Maybe you decided to ignore this part:

He said he handed whatever he had on him — $500 — but they kept pushing him," Malik said.

Arrindell pushed Lovell toward the women's restroom while Gadson took the cashier's money tray, Malik said. Gadson entered the employee area and grabbed the change box.

"The victim believed he would be executed, and when he noticed [Arrindell] distracted ... reached behind his back, removed his loaded .45 caliber handgun from his holster and fired seven rounds," according to a police statement.


The legally armed victim first handed over $500.00 to the thieves. They didnt leave him alone,though and fearing for his life AFTER surrendering his money, he made the decision to defend himself.
And did so succesfully.

Now-we have one less scumbag to worry about.

Good thing for the 71 yr old that the was in America.

Am I the only one who wants to know why he was carrying around $500 in the first place. I don't carry around more than $60, and usually only that when I plan to buy something.

Am I the only one who wants to know why he was carrying around $500 in the first place. I don't carry around more than $60, and usually only that when I plan to buy something.

Does it matter?

Does it matter?
Why do you care if it matters?

Why do you care if it matters?

:confused:

I mean are you going to use it in the context of this discussion to add anything

:confused:

I mean are you going to use it in the context of this discussion to add anything
I'm curious as to why an old guy at Subway had $500 in cash on him.

I'm curious as to why an old guy at Subway had $500 in cash on him.

Fair enough

Am I the only one who wants to know why he was carrying around $500 in the first place. I don't carry around more than $60, and usually only that when I plan to buy something.

Just to address it if your simply curious-you may be the only one,I dont know.
I am used to people that deal mainly in cash,so having $500.00 on you isnt terribly odd.


It doesnt really matter to this incident in my eyes,though. Wether he had $5.00, $500.00 or $5,000.00 cash on him is his business.
He gave it to the scumbag. He wasnt left alone. Maybe the predator thought he was good for more? Maybe they were going to take his car too? Maybe they were just going to shoot him in the bathroom to eliminate a witness?

It doesnt matter-he made his decision and did what was right for him.

Personally, I wouldnt have given up the cash.

I feel sorry for the families of the dead wrongdoers, they have to go through a lot of pain and suffering now on the account of their relatives' actions.

What happened to the actual robbers though was the legitimate and appropriate consequence of their actions.

Indeed, indeed.

Ooorah! Just make sure you don't say ex-Marine or else they'll be cleaning you up :).

My Uncle Carleton, a retired Marine, and many of my veteran Marine friends made sure of that!

Am I the only one who wants to know why he was carrying around $500 in the first place. I don't carry around more than $60, and usually only that when I plan to buy something.

Maybe he just cashed a check. Maybe he was planning on going to buy something at a store later. Maybe he was going to go to the bank, to deposit the money after he left Subway.

What does Lovell having $500 in cash on himself, have anything to do with the story?