In NY Post, Self Defense = Vigilante

[Desertdog]

CRUEL TWIST: SELF-DEFENSE SLAYER MAY FACE DEPORTATION

By DOUGLAS MONTERO
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.nypost.com/commentary/76997.htm
May 29, 2003 -- A HARLEM grocery clerk-turned-vigilante could face an even greater opponent if he is convicted of gun charges, the U.S. government said.
José Acosta, 69, who has been a legal resident of the United States for about 25 years, may be deported if he is convicted of using an illegal gun to shoot one of three armed thugs who tried to rob the grocery store in which he worked Sunday night.

"Anyone convicted of a weapons-possession charge could be placed in a removal proceeding," said an INS official.

The rule applies to any gun-possession charge regardless of the circumstances, the official said, explaining that the decision to deport an offender is in the hands of an immigration court judge.

The news has infuriated supporters of the vigilante, who believe that he shouldn't have even spent 21/2 nights in jail for shooting suspected stickup man Luquarn Washington, 19.

"How about if we deport the three kids who broke into the store," said the Rev. Brian Jordan, an immigrant advocate at St. Francis of Assisi Church in Manhattan.

Manhattan DA staffers declined to discuss the issue, perhaps because they face the same dilemma encountered by their counterparts in Brooklyn and Queens who were legally bound to prosecute two vigilantes who used illegal guns to kill attackers.



The Acosta case, however, raises the stakes because a man considered a hero by local merchants who were being terrorized by a gang of thugs could be thrown out of the country.

"What? I didn't know that," said Acosta's shocked son, José Acosta Jr., of Scarsdale, whose wife gave birth to a boy Monday.

"That's a huge problem. I'm definitely going to fight" the immigration officials who may seek to deport his dad.

Flustered, the son said, "What bothers me is the whole concept: the reality that you penalize someone for defending themselves."

A lawyer told the Harlem vigilante not to talk to the media, but his son said: "He didn't even know that the guy was hurt until Monday."

 

[Jim March]

This has been posted multiple times now.

The thing is, except for the use of the term "vigilante" (which nobody is taking seriously) the Post's coverage of the Alcosta situation has been VERY good. Truly exceptional.

So I'm just ignoring that one word for now.

 

[Standing Wolf]

So I'm just ignoring that one word for now.

I'm not. I believe we need to keep a watchful eye on the way journalists—most of whom are leftist extremists of the lowest sort—use and abuse the English language. The Post does a better job than many another newspaper; the shootings, however, had nothing to do with vigilantism and everything to do with self-defense.

 

[P95Carry]

the shootings, however, had nothing to do with vigilantism and everything to do with self-defense.

Absolutely SW ....... the ''leagalities'' of this are a total farce ....... and someone needs to intervene and inject some sense.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Once again, titles on this sort of subject matter has been sensationalized and not representative of reality. Suggesting that self defense equates with being a vigilante is not what went on.

Note that the store clerk is not being charged with any sort of violent crime and certainly not for being a vigilante. Nothing about the shooting itself is a problem. What this guy faces are charges for contraband, i.e., unlicensed gun.

The only thing connecting the illegal gun to the shooting was the fact that the store owner made it known he had an illegal gun when he discharged it to foil the robbery. There are several such incidents along these lines that have come about recently. In none of the cases, where the owers of illegal guns used properly in self defense, have there been charges for using the gun, even when the bad guy ends up dead.

Furthermore, suggesting self defense equates with being a vigilante isn't substantiated at all in other cases where people defended themselves with legal weapons.

Why sensationalize a real life story with wrong information? The story alone is pretty exciting without the wrong information. Besides, the story clearly stated that the charges were for an illegal gun and NOT for acting in self defense.