Seems like a good shoot and decent reporting

[Pilot]

A Temple University student who was approached by robbers outside his off-campus apartment drew his own weapon and exchanged gunfire with the thieves early Monday, police said.

The 15-year-old was charged by police; his name was not released. The other suspects fled north on 12th.

The teenager will face charges of aggravated and simple assault, robbery, and possibly attempted murder, said police spokeswoman Tanya Little.

She said Eells had a license to carry a firearm and probably would not be charged.

"As far as the investigation stands now, I don't believe so. He was acting in self-defense," she said.

"If you do have a permit, that would be the time to use your weapon, when someone tries to rob you and shoots you," she said.

For once, it seems the Phila Police, and the media are actually saying the right things.

Although they may eventually try to paint the student as a "gun nut", it doesn't seem so yet. However, it shows how careful one should be when posting personal information and views on Facebook and other public websites.

On Eells' Facebook page, he lists one of his inspirations as Samuel Colt, the weapons manufacturer and designer, and his favorite activities as playing bass guitar and shooting guns.

"The world looks different when you're looking at it down the barrel of a loaded gun," his page says. "Whether that's good or bad depends on which end you're looking down."

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/l...ith_robbers__two_injured.html?cmpid=124488459

 

[Al Thompson]

With comments like that, the term "by the skin of his teeth" comes to mind.

 

[Diggers]

JEEEZ! It doesn't get any more "good" than that!

She said Eells had a license to carry a firearm and probably would not be charged.

Probably wouldn't be charged?

So getting shot in the stomach first and then returning fire still leaves room for doubt it seems.

Humm I don't know if I'm all that impressed with this reporting, it's pretty impossible to spin the CCW holder as the bad guy when he is returning fire after being shot by robbers.

 

[heeler]

For the life of me I just dont get all these people putting their every thought an idea on face book.
Why???
I have warned my daughter several times about this very thing.
Hope every thing goes well for Eells.

 

[Fred Fuller]

it shows how careful one should be when posting personal information and views on Facebook and other public websites

Seems I've read that warning hereabouts before...

lpl

 

[AlexM]

The argument of carrying handguns has always come to points such as this. I'm just glad to see that this time it was a case of actually having the handgun when it was needed. If our anit-gun monger people wish to attack Elle for posting on facebook that he enjoys firearms then all we need to do is point out that he did in fact wait to return fire. All his prior enjoyment of firearms proves here is that he was taking the time needed to become proficient and safe with his firearm.

Good post Pilot.

 

[Pilot]

Thanks Alex.

I hope this isn't getting off subject here, but it concerns me that when there is a law suit from one or more of the perps, and I think there will be, the first thing the prosecution will do is research the victim's statements on Facebook and other websites. I hope he has not posted anything to suggest he is looking to shoot someone, as that will hurt us all as responsible gun owners.

From the report, he acted in total self defense, and I hope the gang bang community in Philly starts to realize that "easy prey" may not be so easy anymore. It is reports like these that act as a deterrent, where other major ciites do not have this deterrent.

 

[Kleanbore]

So far, this has involved only a discussion of a news report. Almost the only thing relevant to ST&T has been the content of the shooter's social networking posts.

That content may or may not prove to be determinative in either the criminal charging determination, a possible civil suit, or in other outcomes, but if it does not, that will be simply because the evidence is sufficiently clear.

That is fortunate, but it may not always be so. The risk, of course, is that the totality of the evidence available after the fact, which would include the Facebook posts, might have indicated that our protagonist had been looking for trouble. That would really compromise any defense of justification, regardless of what had really happened. The evidence of the robbers having fired also has apparently overcome that risk, but any of us may one day be forced to use deadly force before the assailant has actually fired a firearm.

It's a good idea to think about the possible adverse effects of posting, emailing, writing, speaking to the media, and so forth--before doing so.

I did say "almost". The other lesson is that the actor was armed when he needed to be, and he had no way of predicting when that would be. There is a lesson there, too.

 

[mortablunt]

I don't see how he could be charged. Shooting in a justified self defense definitely sends a message to criminals.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by mortablunt: I don't see how he could be charged.

Nor do I.

The information reported indicates that the robbers demanded money, opened fire upon and wounded the intended victim, and were subsequently fired upon by the intended victim. The reported location of the robber's wounds indicate that he was not attempting to flee. From what has been reported, it does not appear that the stident had any alternative, nor does it appear that avoidance, de-escalation, escape, or evasion were viable options.

I should think there would have to be some evidence that has not been reported that is very much in contradiction of the above to result in charges against the student.

Again, the lesson learned appears to be to have one's firearm when one needs it.

 

[Exeter]

Thanks Alex.

I hope this isn't getting off subject here, but it concerns me that when their is a law suit from one or more of the perps, and I think there will be, the first thing the prosecution will do is research the victim's statements on Facebook and other websites. I hope he has not posted anything to suggest he is looking to shoot someone, as that will hurt us all as responsible gun owners.

From the report, he acted in total self defense, and I hope the gang bang community in Philly starts to realize that "easy prey" may not be so easy anymore. It is reports like these that act as a deterrent, where other major ciites do not have this deterrent.

The new Castle Doctrine law that recently went into effect in Pennsylvania has a provision that
shields citizens from law suits when they act in self defense. Even so, best to show discretion in what you put up on-line. Might make a difference if a DA is on the fence about whether to file or not.

 

[CarolusIV]

I do a lot of second amendment activism and news posts on my facebook and Google+ page. I often talk about our right to bear arms and the responsibility it places on those of us that choose to. Am I a fool for posting my thoughts on the internet?

What if I told you I've converted a number of people from anti-gun to pro-gun? What if I told you I've personally advised people on their first firearms?

I take responsibility for the information I make public about myself, and I will not apologize for declaring my love of firearm culture. Nor should Eells.

 

[Kleanbore]

Am I a fool for posting my thoughts on the internet?

If the statements that you make, taken out of context, can be interpreted in such a way as to portray you in an unfavorable light, maybe. See this.

 

[CarolusIV]

I think I'll take my chances and continue expanding the shooting community.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by CarolusIV: I think I'll take my chances and continue expanding the shooting community.

It is not at all clear what you mean by that.

Do you understand the meaning of the post linked above, which, by the way, is a Sticky in this forum?

 

[CarolusIV]

I understand. I don't post threats, direct or indirect, on any public accounts.

I do, however, post about my gun rights and my own philosophy of gun ownership. I do this to attract new shooters to the sport. If this gets me in trouble someday, so be it.

 

[Pilot]

I think some individuals do come off as "looking for a fight" on some internet gun websites. I am not saying it happens often here at THR, but sometimes the tone seems so. However, I have seen a trend in more recent years here, and elsewhere that promotes avoidance, and retreat to avoid danger, and the subsequent issues that come from violent response to danger.

I hope the new Castle Doctrine works to stop innocent victims that use force as a means to protect themselves and their families from becoming victims of the legal system themselves. Even with laws like this in place to protect victims, they often have to spend insane amounts of money in a legal defense to prove they were right. Inflamatory posts on Facebook or other websites only gives the legal oppostion fodder for a defense.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Pilot: ...I have seen a trend in more recent years here, and elsewhere that promotes avoidance, and retreat to avoid danger, and the subsequent issues that come from violent response to danger.

Do not be fooled into thinking that there has been "a trend in more recent years that promotes avoidance....". The legal principle that the use of deadly force is lawful only as a last resort precedes all of our state laws and our Constitution by centuries. In fact, the duty to retreat, if safely possible, was set forth in the common law some eight or so centuries ago; it was part of the fabric of all of our state laws; however, that principle was established in the days of contact weapons, and a number of state supreme courts and legislatures have in recent years decided that a citizen may "stand his ground" rather than retreat.

That does not mean that doing so is necessarily a wise thing to do from a tactical standpoint.

See this for a philosophy to live by, and this for an explanation of why the use of deadly force when it is not absolutely necessary can result in a criminal record and imprisonment.

The thing to remember is that after one has used deadly force, he is identified as "the good guy" only his own mind, and whether others will agree will depend upon the evidence.

I hope the new Castle Doctrine works to stop innocent victims that use force as a means to protect themselves and their families from becoming victims of the legal system themselves.

The principle that a man's home is his castle is also very old. Some state legislatures have reaffirmed it, and what it really does is provide one who uses deadly force against a home invader with a presumption that such force was justified by the fact of the invasion. Details very from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

 

[sm]

Kleanbore wrote:

From what has been reported, it does not appear that the stident had any alternative, nor does it appear that avoidance, de-escalation, escape, or evasion were viable options.

This makes this thread pertinent to S&T, as while we do discuss ADEE, life can happen in the blink of an eye, and one may have defend themselves.

To avoid problem two, avoid problem one El Tejon

For newer members allow me to explain this S&T if you will. Problem One is the serious situation. Problem Two is the legal, medical, financial, emotional and every and anything else that comes from having dealt with Problem One.

YOUR location, political flavor and so much more do play a part in all this. Hence the reasons we suggest one actually attend a trial and spend time in their courtrooms to actually learn not only what criminals do, also how the law is interpreted.

I hope it works out for the Student.

 

[Cearbhall]

"If you do have a permit, that would be the time to use your weapon, when someone tries to rob you and shoots you," she said.

Of course, if you live somewhere that you can't get a permit, well you're breaking the law by defending yourself.

 

[Pilot]

Kleanbore wrote:

Do not be fooled into thinking that there has been "a trend in more recent years that promotes avoidance....".

I didn't mean a trend in society, but a trend on firearm related webboards. As people become more educated on the legal methods of self defense, and also the ramifications of legal self defense, the wise choice is always to avoid, evade, retreat, etc if one is able. I see that recommendation a lot more now on webboards than I did ten years ago.

I think it is VERY positive that we as a community are seen as rational, peaceful, and law abiding individuals that do NOT want to engage in gun play, but only see it as a absolute last resort.

 

[mbt2001]

SM +1 as usual...

I think that the trend is one of cooler heads prevailing. I still see new people on the board who talk about shooting first and asking questions later, eventually reading our posts, they see the wisdom in an escape and evade type approach. John Wayne played characters on the screen, not people in real life.

There are worse things than death. Joe Horn... While what he did was legal, so on and on, I bet he wishes he hadn't done it. Another story of Corey Mae, who shot an officer that got the wrong house. He is now sitting on death row.

 

[Cards81fan]

Probably wouldn't be charged?

So getting shot in the stomach first and then returning fire still leaves room for doubt it seems.

Considering she was a police spokesperson, and they do not "charge" people in these cases, she cannot definitively say one way or the other. In all venues I know of, the investigating agency turns over the information to the DA to decide if there is basis for charges or not. So her comments are most certainly innocuous.

I don't see how he could be charged. Shooting in a justified self defense definitely sends a message to criminals.

I agree, as does the police spokeswoman, apparent by her comments

 

[Pilot]

Does anybody know where I can find follow-up info on the victim, and perps? These stories dissapear after the sensational aspects are gone. I'd like to know what penalties the perps face, and hope the victim is recovering well.