Diner owner Defends life with handgun.

[Master Blaster]

This has been all over the local news, apparently this same citizen also defended himself with a handgun when he owned a variety store a few years back. The loacl news folks expressed shock that the Police havent charged him with a crime, and don't plan to .

The question is did he have to wait till the robber fired a shot??? to avoid persecution (spelled correctly) for defneding himself?? And BTW he did not need a gun permit to have a handgun in Philadelphia there is no such thing in PA, so maybe they mean a CCW.

Caught On Cell Phone Video: Diner Owner Kills 1 In Robbery Attempt
Warning: Images Could Be Disturbing To Some

POSTED: 7:19 am EST March 8, 2007
UPDATED: 9:15 am EST March 9, 2007

Email This Story | Print This Story
Sign Up for Breaking News Alerts


PHILADELPHIA -- The owner of a small breakfast restaurant who has been robbed in the past killed one alleged robber and injured another during a robbery gone bad in Philadelphia Thursday morning, police said. After several rounds were fired, a witness captured the aftermath on his daughter's cell phone video recorded.

Authorities said two people tried to hold up Sunrise Breakfast, a small corner joint on the 1900 block of East Washington Lane around 6 a.m., but the owner shot them before they got away.

Police and witnesses said one of the thieves fired at the owner first.


The store owner, 45-year-old Jason Lee -- who had a permit for his gun -- killed Cornell Toombs, 20, and shot Gary Williams, 24, in the face. Williams was listed in critical but stable condition on Friday.

Lee said he did what he had to do when the gunmen entered his store.

"I'm just lucky," he said. "I'm not a hero. It's my security. I had to do what I had to do."

Lee was behind the counter as workers cleaned up the plate-glass window that had been shattered by bullets. Lee, his wife and a female employee had opened the restaurant early Thursday morning before the two gunmen walked in, held a gun to the female cashier and demanded money.

Lee said he grabbed a gun that he always keeps nearby and kept it between his legs and bowed to the floor.

His wife opened the register, and with the gunman distracted, Lee made his move with his .38 caliber weapon.

A witness, Gary, who did not wish to use his last name, used his daughter's cell phone after the shots were firing and captured the owner making the robber he previously shot in the face stay on the ground.

The video could be considered distrubing to some.

http://video.nbc10.com/player/?id=79630

 

[svtruth]

Hate it

when they say "robbery gone wrong"
It went right.
Or "picked the wrong store to rob"
Do the writers think there is a "right" store to rob?

 

[Jdoc]

^^Aggreed^^

Robbery gone wrong. Seems to have went alright to me . One less scum bag to worry about and one that may think about changing his ways. If not and he tries again well he might not be so lucky next time .

 

[bill larry]

Good for this guy! He did the right thing and protected his life and his employees, and his property.

Plus, it always makes me feel good to hear about the "poor" performance of the .38 special.

 

[Thain]

Dang it! They didn't give the name of the diner!

Why, oh why, does the news media never do tell me where to direct my thanks? In this case, by heading there for breakfast next time I'm in Philly?

I want to order the cheapest thign on the menu, and leve this guy a huge tip.

 

[Jeff White]

Let's keep this one on topic or it's history.

The question is did he have to wait till the robber fired a shot??? to avoid persecution (spelled correctly) for defneding himself??

That is the question on the table. We don't need any posts about how he picked the wrong place to rob. We don't need any posts about the criminal getting what he deserved.

Discussion will be confined to issues that are on topic in the Startegies and Tactics forum.

Jeff

 

[tepin]

No he [store owner] didnt have to wait to be shot at before defending himself. Deadly force was already present and in-play. At this point its a free-fire zone until the threat is gone.

 

[Titan6]

Pobably not a "free fire zone". Such things do not exist outside of certain ranges. Not even in combat.

But no he did not have to wait. Man robbing you at gunpoint is a threat to your life.

 

[floridaboy]

All I have to say is it looks like the owner did good!

 

[CWL]

floridaboy, can't you read what the Moderator just wrote?

Your comments are exactly the kind that will get this locked-down and yourself banned.

With that said it looks like initial reporting makes this a justifiable action and will go a long way towards keeping the diner owner out of jail.

Police and witnesses said one of the thieves fired at the owner first.

 

[Joe Link]

If a customer at the diner was carrying could he or she legally shot the robber with the gun?

 

[GLOCK19XDSC]

IANAL, but I believe so. Partial PA statutes below:

§ 506. Use of force for the protection of other persons.

(a) General rule.--The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable to protect a third person when:

1. the actor would be justified under section 505 of this title (relating to use of force in self-protection) in using such force to protect himself against the injury he believes to be threatened to the person whom he seeks to protect;
2. under the circumstances as the actor believes them to be, the person whom he seeks to protect would be justified in using such protective force; and
3. the actor believes that his intervention is necessary for the protection of such other person.

(b) Exceptions.--Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section:

1. When the actor would be obliged under section 505 of this title to retreat, to surrender the possession of a thing or to comply with a demand before using force in self-protection, he is not obliged to do so before using force for the protection of another person, unless he knows that he can thereby secure the complete safety of such other person.
2. When the person whom the actor seeks to protect would be obliged under section 505 of this title to retreat, to surrender the possession of a thing or to comply with a demand if he knew that he could obtain complete safety by so doing, the actor is obliged to try to cause him to do so before using force in his protection if the actor knows that he can obtain complete safety in that way.
3. Neither the actor nor the person whom he seeks to protect is obliged to retreat when in the dwelling or place of work of the other to any greater extent than in his own.


§ 505. Use of force in self-protection.

(a) Use of force justifiable for protection of the person.--The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion.

(b) Limitations on justifying necessity for use of force.--

1. The use of force is not justifiable under this section:
1. to resist an arrest which the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, although the arrest is unlawful; or
2. to resist force used by the occupier or possessor of property or by another person on his behalf, where the actor knows that the person using the force is doing so under a claim of right to protect the property, except that this limitation shall not apply if:

(A) the actor is a public officer acting in the performance of his duties or a person lawfully assisting him therein or a person making or assisting in a lawful arrest;
(B) the actor has been unlawfully dispossessed of the property and is making a reentry or recaption justified by section 507 of this title (relating to use of force for the protection of property); or
(C) the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death or serious bodily injury.


2. The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat; nor is it justifiable if:
1. the actor, with the intent of causing death or serious bodily injury, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter; or
2. the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take, except that:

(A) the actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling or place of work, unless he was the initial aggressor or is assailed in his place of work by another person whose place of work the actor knows it to be; and
(B) a public officer justified in using force in the performance of his duties or a person justified in using force in his assistance or a person justified in using force in making an arrest or preventing an escape is not obliged to desist from efforts to perform such duty, effect such arrest or prevent such escape because of resistance or threatened resistance by or on behalf of the person against whom such action is directed.


3. Except as required by paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection, a person employing protective force may estimate the necessity thereof under the circumstances as he believes them to be when the force is used, without retreating, surrendering possession, doing any other act which he has no legal duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action.

(c) Use of confinement as protective force.--The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of confinement as protective force only if the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the confinement as soon as he knows that he safely can, unless the person confined has been arrested on a charge of crime.

 

[Speedlace]

Here is the conversation of the with the store owner

Threatened to kill one of his employess with a gun to her head. Seems pretty justified.
BG 1: shot in the back of the head (died)
BG 2: shot in the face and back (lived...s**t)

 

[CountGlockula]

The question is did he have to wait till the robber fired a shot??? to avoid persecution (spelled correctly) for defneding himself??

According to the interview, the BG had a gun to the cashier's head and going to count to ten to shoot her in the head. Someone's life was being threatened. He (good guy) needed to protect her...ended up protecting himself, the cashier and wife.

 

[royh]

I know the employee had a gun pointed at her head when this guy went for his gun, but I don't know whether it was the hostage taker that was distracted and shot first or not. Now I wasn't there, so I won't talk about what was reasonable for this guy; it seems like a tricky call to make either way. I would guess most BGs have a strong sense of self-preservation (in the short term), so I think in most cases like this a hostage taker, when faced with an immediate threat would not waste time killing his hostage. But predicting what a BG will do is always risky. What do you guys think?

 

[Speedlace]

I know the employee had a gun pointed at her head when this guy went for his gun, but I don't know whether it was the hostage taker that was distracted and shot first or not. Now I wasn't there, so I won't talk about what was reasonable for this guy; it seems like a tricky call to make either way. I would guess most BGs have a strong sense of self-preservation (in the short term), so I think in most cases like this a hostage taker, when faced with an immediate threat would not waste time killing his hostage. But predicting what a BG will do is always risky. What do you guys think?

The store owner fired the 1st shoot into BACK of BG1's head.
If you watch the vid Mr. Lee said that BG2 got frighted and scared, and then got a bullet in the face

 

[Caimlas]

Plus, it always makes me feel good to hear about the "poor" performance of the .38 special.

The baddie got hit in the head and didn't die. In fact, he was up and walking around. That seems like pretty poor performance to me.

Granted, the guy was obviously incapitated enough (momentarily) to not flee any further, so in this situation it was Enough Gun, but what if the guy had been drug addled and was attacking? Not something I'd like to see.

Also, it sounds like the store owner was a damn good shot! One down, and one in the head, on moving targets? Dude!

 

[glocktoberfest]

Your comments are exactly the kind that will get this locked-down and yourself banned.

kinda off topic too , ain't it ?

 

[Geno]

What, is self-defense like baseball...three strikes and you're out? Besides, he's only shot twice! Sounds, according to the police, that both times were justified. Thank-the-Lord for giving us level-headed police.

Some people are really dumb. I guess they would have stood there and cried and died.

 

[doubleg]

A commenter on the video..

All I have to say is all you people are ignorant.. A life was lost no matter what the circumstance were...He was family.. And I will grieve for him everyday...He was a loving person who took care of his family and love ones. He made a mistake..and its only GOD's judgment that counts. No matter what any of you say or believe he will always be remembered as the GOOd man that he was.

-Angela

I hope she has a gun pointed in her face some day, bet all that hippy crap would fly right out the window.