Do you have the right to protect yourself?

[Tigermike 3,045]

I hate they were shot and one died, but there are consequences for your actions. If you go in to rob a store you may get your ass shot.

Former Marine's Actions Called Into Question

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

POSTED: 10:30 am EDT 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.

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.

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

Now, while I understand Ms. Jones desire to have her grandson among the living, this particular case addresses the fallacy of believing self-defense is "taking the law into your hands".

When you are threatened with deadly force the proper defense is to use the same level of force, if necessary, to protect yourself.

That has absolutely nothing to do with "the law" or who should be abiding by it. Obviously Ms. Jones grandson had no use for the law as demonstrated by his actions and he certainly wasn't abiding by it. But she insists that Mr. Lovell's job was to do so.

I don't think so.

If Mr. Lovell had a job at all, it was to defend his own life from what he considered an imminent threat. It's that "inalienable right" we've talked about so often. He, and everyone, enjoys - by right - that sphere of moral authority which empowers him to act without anyone's permission to protect his own life.

Ms. Jone's grandson threatened Mr. Lovell's life with a deadly weapon, whether he pulled the trigger or not. Her grandson had no problem waving around a gun and threatening the workers and customers in the shop with possible death if they didn't comply with his orders (and offering no assurance they'd live even if they did comply with his orders). Mr. Lovell obviously took the threats seriously and met the threat to his life with the only means available to him at the time. He pulled his handgun, for which he had a legal concealed carry permit, and ended the threat by shooting both of the gunmen.

As Ms. Jones is going to find out, both the law and the vast majority of citizens are going to come down on the side of Mr. Lovell. In fact, she's going to find that most people are going to praise Mr. Lovell - and that includes me. I'm sorry she lost her grandson, but quite frankly, I'm quite pleased Mr. Lovell is still with us. Given a choice between the two, I'll take Mr. Lovell every time.

Thanks Mc http://qando.net/

[kwagoner 214]

Taking the law into his own hands?..................... Please. If her grandson was the one getting held up, she'd be thanking the Lord above that Lovell was there (defending himself, but there).

[TheDrewYouKnew 3]

I hate they were shot and one died, but there are consequences for your actions. If you go in to rob a store you may get your ass shot.

Former Marine's Actions Called Into Question

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

POSTED: 10:30 am EDT 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.

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.

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

Now, while I understand Ms. Jones desire to have her grandson among the living, this particular case addresses the fallacy of believing self-defense is "taking the law into your hands".

When you are threatened with deadly force the proper defense is to use the same level of force, if necessary, to protect yourself.

That has absolutely nothing to do with "the law" or who should be abiding by it. Obviously Ms. Jones grandson had no use for the law as demonstrated by his actions and he certainly wasn't abiding by it. But she insists that Mr. Lovell's job was to do so.

I don't think so.

If Mr. Lovell had a job at all, it was to defend his own life from what he considered an imminent threat. It's that "inalienable right" we've talked about so often. He, and everyone, enjoys - by right - that sphere of moral authority which empowers him to act without anyone's permission to protect his own life.

Ms. Jone's grandson threatened Mr. Lovell's life with a deadly weapon, whether he pulled the trigger or not. Her grandson had no problem waving around a gun and threatening the workers and customers in the shop with possible death if they didn't comply with his orders (and offering no assurance they'd live even if they did comply with his orders). Mr. Lovell obviously took the threats seriously and met the threat to his life with the only means available to him at the time. He pulled his handgun, for which he had a legal concealed carry permit, and ended the threat by shooting both of the gunmen.

As Ms. Jones is going to find out, both the law and the vast majority of citizens are going to come down on the side of Mr. Lovell. In fact, she's going to find that most people are going to praise Mr. Lovell - and that includes me. I'm sorry she lost her grandson, but quite frankly, I'm quite pleased Mr. Lovell is still with us. Given a choice between the two, I'll take Mr. Lovell every time.

Thanks Mc http://qando.net/

I'm waiting for some liberal supporters to chime in and agree with the idiot that thinks he shouldn't have defended his life using any and all force possible at his disposal. Come on....you know you want it.....you want an OBAMANATION where defending yourself will be taxed!!! Obviously all involved were white, otherwise we would have to listen to garbage about race being a factor, or how he was racially motivated to protect himself.

[AUAV66 0]

Well, if guns were illegal then her grandson would still be here

I'm tired of family members of violent criminals trying to claim they are the victims when one of the dumba---- get what they deserve.