He must be bleeding somewhere....


Fairfax County Police Department
Public Information Office
4100 Chain Bridge Road, Fairfax, Va. 22030
703-246-2253. TTY 703-204-2264. Fax 703-246-4253
FCPD-PIO@fairfaxcounty.gov
www.fairfaxcounty.gov/police
News Release: 09/070/2407/spr (2)
March 12, 2009
Pickpocket in Woodlawn Area

A 68-year-old Lorton-area man and his wife, a 65-year-old woman, were walking together in the 8300 block of Frye Road around 3:40 p.m. on Wednesday, March 11, when a man came up behind them. The suspect took the husband’s wallet from his pant pocket. The husband, who was legally carrying a concealed handgun, retrieved his gun and shot at the suspect. The suspect fled the scene in a teal, four-door car. The victim and his wife were not hurt during the incident.

The suspect was described as black. He was approximately 6 feet tall, heavyset, with short hair. He was wearing a light gray, short sleeve T-shirt which might have had blue paint marks on it.

Anyone with information is asked to contact Crime Solvers by phone at 1-866-411-TIPS(8477), e-mail at www.fairfaxcrimesolvers.org or text “TIP187” plus your message to CRIMES(274637) or call Fairfax County Police at 703-691-2131.

Wow. Using deadly force against a pickpocket. From the the little we know from this press release it sounds as if the old guy better be glad he didn't kill him. No doubt the pickpocket is a scumbag, but deadly force? Doesn't sound justified to me. I wonder if the old guy shot at him when the pickpocket was running away or driving away? Undoubtedly a member of the goofy VCDL.

Definitely not a smart move by the old man.

oh yes....that poor pickpocket.....he must be the victim here......

are you people kidding me? while the man may have made a mistake in shooting at him...if the man did not produce the gun who knows how far the criminal would have gone.....i seriously doubt that a virginia commonwealth attorney would even take the case to a grand jury if this criminal shows up and says he was shot.....

if your first reaction to reading this news release was that the old man was the one who is wrong then you are the problem.....not a part of the problem...you are THE problem.

I doubt this would hold up as self-defense. I would assume the guy was fleeing when he was shot at. Stupid move on the old dude's part.

Pickpocketing a 68 year old guy is over the top sleazy. Too bad the geazer didn't drop him cold in his tracks and thin the herd.

wow67845 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> oh yes....that poor pickpocket.....he must be the
> victim here......
>
> are you people kidding me? while the man may have
> made a mistake in shooting at him...if the man did
> not produce the gun who knows how far the criminal
> would have gone.....i seriously doubt that a
> virginia commonwealth attorney would even take the
> case to a grand jury if this criminal shows up and
> says he was shot.....
>
> if your first reaction to reading this news
> release was that the old man was the one who is
> wrong then you are the problem.....not a part of
> the problem...you are THE problem.


I think the law is pretty clear that the use of deadly force is pretty much reserved for self-defense. On the surface, it sounds like the perp was running away when he was shot at. If the old guy had killed him, he might not get a criminal conviction, but he would most definitely lose a wrongful death suit in civil court.

Obviously we have all the facts here. This tremendously detailed write-up definitely tells the complete story. Get a rope and find a sturdy tree, we've got an old man to string up!

I hope the pickpocket sues the old man and that I am on the jury!

The fact the old man wasn't arrested shows that there's a whole lot more to the story that we're missing.

Just Sayin' Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> I think the law is pretty clear that the use of
> deadly force is pretty much reserved for
> self-defense. On the surface, it sounds like the
> perp was running away when he was shot at. If the
> old guy had killed him, he might not get a
> criminal conviction, but he would most definitely
> lose a wrongful death suit in civil court.

In these times, a jury is more likely to arrive at a verdict using the "gray" interpretation of the law vs the "black and white" interpretation with cases that involves a young thug attacking a senior gentleman for his wallet.

Even in a future civil suit, this "victim" would do well to NOT insist on a jury of his peers (if any of his real peers are out of prison).


Concealed weapon legislation is one of the smartest things implemented by legislators. With enough people carry concealed weapons, it will only take a few more news items like this before thugs think twice about who they think is an easy mark.

I hope the next Grams or Gram is a better shot so we don't have to waste time and money on a trials.

I'm all for CC. I carry all the time.

And if you read closer, it says the man shot at the suspect. That does not mean the old man hit the suspect.

I'm sure the robber shit him self.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I hope the pickpocket sues the old man and that I
> am on the jury!

You remind me of a story I heard of a guy robbing a school from the roof that fell through a sky light and successfully sued the school.

Oh Pleazzeeeee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pickpocketing a 68 year old guy is over the top
> sleazy. Too bad the geazer didn't drop him cold
> in his tracks and thin the herd.


agreed.

Junes Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just Sayin' Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > I think the law is pretty clear that the use of
> > deadly force is pretty much reserved for
> > self-defense. On the surface, it sounds like
> the
> > perp was running away when he was shot at. If
> the
> > old guy had killed him, he might not get a
> > criminal conviction, but he would most
> definitely
> > lose a wrongful death suit in civil court.
>
> In these times, a jury is more likely to arrive at
> a verdict using the "gray" interpretation of the
> law vs the "black and white" interpretation with
> cases that involves a young thug attacking a
> senior gentleman for his wallet.
>
> Even in a future civil suit, this "victim" would
> do well to NOT insist on a jury of his peers (if
> any of his real peers are out of prison).
>
>
> Concealed weapon legislation is one of the
> smartest things implemented by legislators. With
> enough people carry concealed weapons, it will
> only take a few more news items like this before
> thugs think twice about who they think is an easy
> mark.
>
> I hope the next Grams or Gram is a better shot so
> we don't have to waste time and money on a trials.


Not at all Junes...what will happen is that thugs will shoot first...ask questions later. It'll just get back to the old west of who can draw their gun the quickest. The dream that nirvana is only a gun away is ridiculous.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/13/2009 09:12AM by Vince(1).

Did the pickpocket say hello to the old man's little friend?

Good for the old man, if he does get hammered criminally or civilly, we should support him.

Any juror who'd convict this guy is a complete pussy. It kind of reminds me of the old Bernard Goetz subway vigilante case in the 80's, strange things could happen. When Goetz was on civil and criminal trial, there were agitators who painted Goetz as a racist because he was white and all of the chumps who tried to rob him were black. I wish the the pickpocket was white and the shooter black, so the race baiters stay off of this.

If hit, I hope the perp took a flesh wound or maybe some clean shot to an arm, leg or shoulder. NO mention of caliber. Hopefully the would-be thief will treat his own wound and learn a little something.

Yes, we know what the law is, but yes we know whats right also.

I'm sorry, but the perp violated the victims. The perp now has the victim's identification, home address, phone number, bank accounts, etc. He was/is likely to be a victim of this guy again. I cheer the victim for shooting this CRIMINAL and protecting himself and his wife. One has no idea what the perp was planning in the future and if the perp had buddies around waiting to finish the robbery off.

You guys are nuts if you think we shouldn't be able to protect ourselves from criminals. If the jerk wasn't pickpocketing he wouldn't have been shot at.

Oh Pleazzeeeee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pickpocketing a 68 year old guy is over the top
> sleazy. Too bad the geazer didn't drop him cold
> in his tracks and thin the herd.

True that. Now maybe the thug can take his teal four-door and drive to his hood boy's place and tell his buddies that robbing old people may not be as easy as it is cracked up to be anymore. They should then proceed to pay Vince a visit, as I am sure he will welcome them into his home and provide them job advice.

Vince(1) is probably a lifelong member of the NRA and a Minute Man to boot. He just shows up here to spout extreme views and get the people here jacked off. I don't believe a word he says anymore.

I doubt that given:

Vince(1)
56/mwm/flaming liberal/atheist


Though it's possible.

I have a long and consistent opinion against guns. You might not agree...but why wouldnt you believe me? Believe this...guns are all about money..that's all...not protection...not constitutional rights...blood money.

That's just what we all need, a "senior citizen" firing a gun at a fleeing suspect ON A PUBLIC STREET.

Let's see how sympathetic everyone would be if this guy dropped a kid on a Big Wheel.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not at all Junes...what will happen is that thugs
> will shoot first...as questions later. It'll just
> get back to the old west of who can draw their gun
> the quickest. The dream that nirvana is only a
> gun away is ridiculous.

Actually, that's not so. Several years ago a small town in KY, with an out-of-control crime problem because only the criminals had guns.

The Town Council initiated a law requiring all residents over the age of 18 own and be trained to own a fire arm. those who were opposed for acceptable reasons were granted a waiver (very few requsts for waivers were submitted). The legislation was to take effect 3 months after the date it was passed.

Within a year, the town's violent crimes, as well as break ins, were reduced so dramatically, the police were spending more time doing PR than chasing the bad guys.

The point being - criminals are not the brightest bulb in the pack, but even a stupid criminal knows the odds are against them when just about everyone in town is "carrying," and KNOWS how to use the "piece."

If you read the news papers or listen to the local news, handgun training at local firing ranges is on the rise. In some areas there is a wait list.

As the economy continues to tank and thugs look for the easy way out, life for criminals - as they once knew it - may not be the same.

jason Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm sorry, but the perp violated the victims. The
> perp now has the victim's identification, home
> address, phone number, bank accounts, etc. He
> was/is likely to be a victim of this guy again. I
> cheer the victim for shooting this CRIMINAL and
> protecting himself and his wife. One has no idea
> what the perp was planning in the future and if
> the perp had buddies around waiting to finish the
> robbery off.
>
> You guys are nuts if you think we shouldn't be
> able to protect ourselves from criminals. If the
> jerk wasn't pickpocketing he wouldn't have been
> shot at.


WOW!!! My favorite line above is "One has no idea
> what the perp was planning in the future"....SCARRRREY!

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have a long and consistent opinion against guns.
> You might not agree...but why wouldnt you believe
> me? Believe this...guns are all about
> money..that's all...not protection...not
> constitutional rights...blood money.


Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I got my first rifle when I was 12, and have owned rifles, shotguns and handguns all my life - though I'm not as comfortable with a handgun.

There was a time when people bought a gun and hid it away on the top shelf of the closet. handling it only when they bought it and "stored" it. Today, people who buy guns are more involved with their handling, use and maintainence - more responsible -- and a greater threat to criminals.

In a way guns are about money - responsible gun owners now have a greater assurance that a criminal is less likely to steal their money.

I'd have to side with the minority here. The old man was not defending his life, but yet he brandished and discharged his weapon. Bad move, he could be in a world of hurt shortly. Your weapon may only be used to defend your life or the life of others. For anonymous user "wow", VCDL stresses when and how you may use a pistol for self defense, and this isn't one of those cases. You're an idiotic ass.

Clobbersaurus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The fact the old man wasn't arrested shows that
> there's a whole lot more to the story that we're
> missing.


It shows that the cops are investigating and haven't determined if charges need to be filed.

It's funny how people are more afraid of a pickpocket than they are of some idiot with poor aim firing a gun on a city street like it's a fucking wild west show.

Neither of these dumbasses would make me feel "safe".

It's usually the criminals, who are untrained, undisciplined and stupid, who shoot the bystanders during drivebys etc.

Junes, I don't like the idea of everyone being "required" to have guns. It's statist and frankly you'll put guns into the hands of some really dumb and unwilling people.

I agree wholeheartedly that more guns lead to less crime as I've been around enough violent convicts and wannabes to know the one thing they do fear and respect is firepower. It's immeasurable and moot to try to gauge the number of crimes that are "prevented" by the fear of firearms, but it should be easy enough to understand the unarmed pacifist is always the easier victim and the homeowner who "may or may not be armed" isn't worth the risk. Think again.

The case with this old timer to me looks like this- yes he met a felony with possible lethal force above and beyond his threat. But NO, he doesn't deserve jail, probation, loss of gun rights or sent to bed with no supper because he responded to a threat against his finacial security and a threat against society as a whole. And it's great PR against further potential threats. Jury nullification.

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's usually the criminals, who are untrained,
> undisciplined and stupid, who shoot the bystanders
> during drivebys etc.
>

IHOP

> Junes, I don't like the idea of everyone being
> "required" to have guns. It's statist and frankly
> you'll put guns into the hands of some really dumb
> and unwilling people.
>


> I agree wholeheartedly that more guns lead to less
> crime as I've been around enough violent convicts
> and wannabes to know the one thing they do fear
> and respect is firepower. It's immeasurable and
> moot to try to gauge the number of crimes that are
> "prevented" by the fear of firearms, but it should
> be easy enough to understand the unarmed pacifist
> is always the easier victim and the homeowner who
> "may or may not be armed" isn't worth the risk.
> Think again.
>

Point to any statistic that backs up your train of thought. We have more guns in this country than any other country on Earth and we also have the highest murder rate. For every crime that is supposedly deterred by a citizen with a gun, you have hundreds, if not thousands, of fire arm murders, often with the owner of the gun killing someone he or she is related to or knows because the gun is accessible in the house. You have nothing to back up your claims.

> The case with this old timer to me looks like
> this- yes he met a felony with possible lethal
> force above and beyond his threat. But NO, he
> doesn't deserve jail, probation, loss of gun
> rights or sent to bed with no supper because he
> responded to a threat against his finacial
> security and a threat against society as a whole.
> And it's great PR against further potential
> threats. Jury nullification.

You live in la la land if you believe that. If the perp was running away when the guy pulled the gun and shot, you could have reckless endangerment and criminal negligence. Whatever penalty might come down the pike may be a "slap on the wrist," but you won't have jury nullification.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's funny how people are more afraid of a
> pickpocket than they are of some idiot with poor
> aim firing a gun on a city street like it's a
> fucking wild west show.
>
> Neither of these dumbasses would make me feel
> "safe".

We don't know why the old man was targeted, he may have carrying payroll to a bank, whatever. The "pickpocket" as the news media called him, may have done something closer to strong arm robbery and because he got this guys wallet with ease doesn't mean he wouldn't rough off a more able bodied victim.

The magic with this is there was no "mushrooms" who just happened to pop up in the way of the bullets. While its probably stupid to speculate what the pickpocket could have been capable of, it's just as stupid to speculate that a bystander could have been shot. The old man may have a steady hand and good judgement for all we know.

To use the logic of the antis--

"Police are corrupt, brutal and the most part racists- and they are the only ones in society we should trust owning guns" Don't get it.

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Junes, I don't like the idea of everyone being
> "required" to have guns. It's statist and frankly
> you'll put guns into the hands of some really dumb
> and unwilling people.
>
I never said Everyone - the Town Council granted waivers for anyone unwilling to own a gun. Further, each person who owned, or planned to buy a gun, had to first attend training and be range certified.

WashingTone Locian Wrote:
> >
>
> > I agree wholeheartedly that more guns lead to
> less
> > crime as I've been around enough violent
> convicts
> > and wannabes to know the one thing they do fear
> > and respect is firepower. It's immeasurable and
> > moot to try to gauge the number of crimes that
> are
> > "prevented" by the fear of firearms, but it
> should
> > be easy enough to understand the unarmed
> pacifist
> > is always the easier victim and the homeowner
> who
> > "may or may not be armed" isn't worth the risk.
> > Think again.
> >
>
> Point to any statistic that backs up your train of
> thought. We have more guns in this country than
> any other country on Earth and we also have the
> highest murder rate. For every crime that is
> supposedly deterred by a citizen with a gun, you
> have hundreds, if not thousands, of fire arm
> murders, often with the owner of the gun killing
> someone he or she is related to or knows because
> the gun is accessible in the house. You have
> nothing to back up your claims.

It can't be backed up by statistics. I oppose the death penalty ( because of its irreversibilty and the mistakes in justice) but like guns it serves as an immeasurable deterrent.Convicts on TV will always say they're scared of nothing, but the truth is they will quietly admit among selves that unarmed victims are better targets.

In the early 90's I was balls out into drugs and guns and I was stupid enough to waste a lot of time locked up with these people you think you know about.Statistics will never be able to prove crimes that don't go through because of fear of guns because its a subject hard to survey and a survey group already prone to lying. You cannot measure an action that does not happen because of fear among a group who are prone to lying anyway, can we?

Again, my take is empirical and antedoctal, but why are so many more gun crimes committed in the District than in Fairfax? There are far better robbery targets in the county than in the city, the getwaway routes superior etc etc.

I'm not a guy who thinks guns are the answer, I actually support short waiting periods and a few other restrictive measures. VA has fair laws and similar laws could be used to curtail a lot of the store robberys and home invasions in the District.

An AK-47 can be duplicated in Pakistan in a shoddy machine shopfor about $20 USD. Do you think if there was an all out gun ban that there would not be a huge blackmarket for guns like this and that criminals would suddenly abide by the law?

WashingTone Locian Wrote:

For every crime that is
> supposedly deterred by a citizen with a gun, you
> have hundreds, if not thousands, of fire arm
> murders,


A crime "supposedly deterred" by a ctitzen with a gun doesn't always involve the gun being drawn or fired. The deterent can be as simple as the mere fear from the perp that this store/home may not be a good one to rob because the owner may be armed. See my point?

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone Locian Wrote:
>
> For every crime that is
> > supposedly deterred by a citizen with a gun,
> you
> > have hundreds, if not thousands, of fire arm
> > murders,
>
>
> A crime "supposedly deterred" by a ctitzen with a
> gun doesn't always involve the gun being drawn or
> fired. The deterent can be as simple as the mere
> fear from the perp that this store/home may not be
> a good one to rob because the owner may be armed.
> See my point?


I understand your point. But crime statistics don't back it up.

The U.S. has more guns than any other country. We also have more crimes that involve gun violence.

Based on your contention, there should never be robberies because every home has the potential of having a gun inside.

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> An AK-47 can be duplicated in Pakistan in a
> shoddy machine shopfor about $20 USD. Do you think
> if there was an all out gun ban that there would
> not be a huge blackmarket for guns like this and
> that criminals would suddenly abide by the law?


I'm not advocating a gun ban. I am merely pointing out that you have nothing to back up your contention that more guns mean less crime.

WashingTone Locian Wrote:

>
> Based on your contention, there should never be
> robberies because every home has the potential of
> having a gun inside.

Every home in a city like Chicago or DC has more potential for robbery because guns are illegal in those cities, would you agree?

WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WingNut Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > WashingTone Locian Wrote:
> >
> > For every crime that is
> > > supposedly deterred by a citizen with a gun,
> > you
> > > have hundreds, if not thousands, of fire arm
> > > murders,
> >
> >
> > A crime "supposedly deterred" by a ctitzen with
> a
> > gun doesn't always involve the gun being drawn
> or
> > fired. The deterent can be as simple as the
> mere
> > fear from the perp that this store/home may not
> be
> > a good one to rob because the owner may be
> armed.
> > See my point?
>
>
> I understand your point. But crime statistics
> don't back it up.
>
> The U.S. has more guns than any other country. We
> also have more crimes that involve gun violence.
>


The top ten countries for homicide do not include the US.

The top 10 are: (per 100,000)
Colombia 62
Jamaica 32
Russia 20
Mexico 13
Estonia 10
Latvia 10
Lithuania 10
Belarus 9
Papua New Guinea 8
Kyrgyzstan 8


US = 5.6

Oh and as for the gan ban in Britain: in 1997, when their gun ban was passed, they had approximatley 45 violent crimes per 100,000. After the gun ban? more than 50

From some British newspaper:
"Despite a ban on handguns introduced in 1997 after 16 children and their teacher were shot dead in the Dunblane massacre the previous year, their use in crimes has almost doubled to reach 4,671 in 2005-06"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2317307.ece



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/13/2009 11:28AM by KeepOnTruckin.

Re: Pickpocket gets shot in Woodlawn
Posted by: WashingTone Locian ()
Date: March 13, 2009 09:08AM


That's just what we all need, a "senior citizen" firing a gun at a fleeing suspect ON A PUBLIC STREET.

Let's see how sympathetic everyone would be if this guy dropped a kid on a Big Wheel.

Not an issue if you know how to shoot

Bonfire Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Re: Pickpocket gets shot in Woodlawn
> Posted by: WashingTone Locian ()
> Date: March 13, 2009 09:08AM
>
>
> That's just what we all need, a "senior citizen"
> firing a gun at a fleeing suspect ON A PUBLIC
> STREET.
>
> Let's see how sympathetic everyone would be if
> this guy dropped a kid on a Big Wheel.
>
> Not an issue if you know how to shoot


The old coot missed. The guy doesn't know how to shoot.

KeepOnTruckin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> >
> > The U.S. has more guns than any other country.
> We
> > also have more crimes that involve gun violence.
>
> >
>
>
> The top ten countries for homicide do not include
> the US.
>
> The top 10 are: (per 100,000)
> Colombia 62
> Jamaica 32
> Russia 20
> Mexico 13
> Estonia 10
> Latvia 10
> Lithuania 10
> Belarus 9
> Papua New Guinea 8
> Kyrgyzstan 8
>
>
> US = 5.6
>
> Oh and as for the gan ban in Britain: in 1997,
> when their gun ban was passed, they had
> approximatley 45 violent crimes per 100,000. After
> the gun ban? more than 50
>
> From some British newspaper:
> "Despite a ban on handguns introduced in 1997
> after 16 children and their teacher were shot dead
> in the Dunblane massacre the previous year, their
> use in crimes has almost doubled to reach 4,671 in
> 2005-06"
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/art
> icle2317307.ece

Nice try. Look up murders WITH A FIREARM. Using that criteria, the U.S. is definitely in the Top 10.

Also, I said "crimes that involve gun violence," not murder.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's funny how people are more afraid of a
> pickpocket than they are of some idiot with poor
> aim firing a gun on a city street like it's a
> fucking wild west show.
>
> Neither of these dumbasses would make me feel
> "safe".


I would be more concerned about a pickpocket - consider what you carry in your wallet:

Your credit card(s)
Your ATM card(s)
Probably a few passwords jotted down and tucked in the corner


But the most dangerous document you carry is your drivers license.

Your drivers license provides not only the pickpocket with your name, address, date of birth, but all his/her friends too - leaving you you wide open for future assaults against you and/or your family ... ANY TIME THEY WANT.

Picking a pocket goes much further than just the loss of a few bucks or replacing some credit/debit cards.

I hope the pickpocket sues the old man and that I am on the jury!

Vince, you are either putting everyone on or you are seriously mentally impaired.

Junes Wrote:
>>- leaving you you wide open for future assaults against you and/or your family ... ANY TIME THEY WANT.


LOL, what? So pickpockets aren't really after money, what they really want is your home address so that they can assault you at some later date. lol, yeah that makes sense.

Trust me, my wallet gets stolen, I'm more worried about the time and effort it would take to get my id's and credit cards back- I wouldn't be worried about some dude showing up at my front door wanting to kick my ass. That is absurd.

I'd be much more worried about having some trigger-happy knucklehead in my neighborhood behaving irresponsibly with a loaded gun.



> Picking a pocket goes much further than just the

Finally! Some good news. Let's hope that the pickpocket has a long, painful recovery.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Junes Wrote:
> >>- leaving you you wide open for future assaults
> against you and/or your family ... ANY TIME THEY
> WANT.
>
>
> LOL, what? So pickpockets aren't really after
> money, what they really want is your home address
> so that they can assault you at some later date.
> lol, yeah that makes sense.
>
> Trust me, my wallet gets stolen, I'm more worried
> about the time and effort it would take to get my
> id's and credit cards back- I wouldn't be worried
> about some dude showing up at my front door
> wanting to kick my ass. That is absurd.
>
> I'd be much more worried about having some
> trigger-happy knucklehead in my neighborhood
> behaving irresponsibly with a loaded gun.
>
>
>
> > Picking a pocket goes much further than just the


Junes lives in a very scarey world where virtually everyone is out to get her in one shape or form.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Junes lives in a very scarey world where virtually
> everyone is out to get her in one shape or form.

I guess it takes one to know one.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

I think the man who shot the pickpocket should get an Outstanding
Citizen Award and a parade! Throw in some marching bands too!

Bernard Goetz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think the man who shot the pickpocket should get
> an Outstanding
> Citizen Award and a parade! Throw in some marching
> bands too!

No, what he did was reckless and irresponsible, and reflects poorly on the actual responsible gun owners.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Junes Wrote:
> >>- leaving you you wide open for future assaults
> against you and/or your family ... ANY TIME THEY
> WANT.
>
>
> LOL, what? So pickpockets aren't really after
> money, what they really want is your home address
> so that they can assault you at some later date.
> lol, yeah that makes sense.
>
> Trust me, my wallet gets stolen, I'm more worried
> about the time and effort it would take to get my
> id's and credit cards back- I wouldn't be worried
> about some dude showing up at my front door
> wanting to kick my ass. That is absurd.

>

I guess if you don't care that a thief knows where you live (for any number of reasons), then it wouldn't be applicable.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

Vince, you are like a piece of toilet paper stuck to the bottom of a shoe. You just keep tagging along with no useful purpose or contribution.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> No, what he did was reckless and irresponsible,
> and reflects poorly on the actual responsible gun
> owners.


OK, yYou're right and you got me on that one!

The elderly gent should have been in control and least shot him in the leg and brought him down at the scene so police wouldn't waste time trying to find him.

Trained or not, I think we will see a lot more of this as people become more desperate. When was the last time you heard of so many physical bank robberies?

If someone stole my wallet, I would draw on them and ask them politely to stop and give me my shit back. If they tried to flee or escape, I wouldn't try to shoot them anyway.

If they turned and came at me again, though, they would find out exactly how much I practice double taps when I go to the range.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

So I'm walking down the street and some dumbass sneaks up behind me, steals my wallet, and runs off. I'm sure the first thing he does is open my wallet, look at my license, and says "Now that I know who this person is, I think I'll go rob his house. It's not like there are any other places I can burglarize."



Junes Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I guess if you don't care that a thief knows where
> you live (for any number of reasons), then it
> wouldn't be applicable.

The police really owe us more info about the shooting. We don't know if this was a crime of convenience or some planned thing of an oldster who makes large bank deposits regularly etc. Doubtful the robber had big plans of a future heist using the mans ID and address but it is enough to be concerned about.

Like it or not, the publicity of this case could likely prevent these types of robberies or make the bad actirs think twice.

Yes, the old timer may just be charged. Without a bleeding perp, unlawful discharge or attempted assault is more likely, though the victim is the one who called the law tells you something big there.

Quit the crying, I've lost friends to gun violence and I still applaud the geez. Hopefully if charged, the jury won't be some whiny fucks who think it's their civic duty to hammer him with some letter of the law conviction.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If someone stole my wallet, I would draw on them
> and ask them politely to stop and give me my shit
> back. If they tried to flee or escape, I wouldn't
> try to shoot them anyway.
>
> If they turned and came at me again, though, they
> would find out exactly how much I practice double
> taps when I go to the range.

This is how I would deal with that situation as well. It's the only way to. That old man was trigger happy. Makes all of us who carry look bad for sure.

Meeper, it's good that you have such blind faith in mankind. I'm sure all those people whose wallet contents have been used for robberies, spending sprees and "recycled" to "give people identities and put them to work" also feel they have "done a good thing."

Twenty years ago when someone picked a wallet, they pulled the cash and tossed the wallet in a mail box or a dumpster. There was no further use for the contents. Today we live in a different world where those contents are worth big bucks, and pickpockets know exactly who is buying.

A wallet with $10 in cash can be worth up to $200 to a pickpocket with the right connections. And they DO have those connections.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/14/2009 07:22AM by Junes.

Junes Wrote:
>> Meeper, it's good that you have such blind faith> in mankind.


No, I'm just not some wacky old lady like you are.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Junes Wrote:
> >> Meeper, it's good that you have such blind
> faith> in mankind.
>
>
> No, I'm just not some wacky old lady like you are.


It sounds more like you have your head in the sand. But that's OK if that helps you cope, then by all means, run with whatever works for you.

Junes Wrote:
>>> It sounds more like you have your head in the sand. But that's OK if that helps you cope, then by all means, run with whatever works for you.


Seriously, it's like goofy shit an old grandmother worries about. You need to get out more.

I'm hardly an old grandmother Meeper and obviously I get out more than you - evidenced by the amount of time you spend on this forum. Your naiveté however is priceless.

Hey, as I said before, if your nearly 6,000 (mostly offensive) posts on an anonymous forum and your personal naiveté is the coping mechanism that works for you, then by all means stay with it. Seriously!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/14/2009 08:27AM by Junes.

Junes Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm hardly an old grandmother

Are you hot?

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Junes Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm hardly an old grandmother Meeper and obviously
> I get out more than you - evidenced by the amount
> of time you spend on this forum. Your naiveté
> however is priceless.
>
> Hey, as I said before, if your nearly 6,000
> (mostly offensive) posts on an anonymous forum and
> your personal naiveté is the coping mechanism that
> works for you, then by all means stay with it.
> Seriously!



NO WIRE HANGERS, EVER!!!!

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Junes Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I'm hardly an old grandmother Meeper and
> obviously
> > I get out more than you - evidenced by the
> amount
> > of time you spend on this forum. Your naiveté
> > however is priceless.
> >
> > Hey, as I said before, if your nearly 6,000
> > (mostly offensive) posts on an anonymous forum
> and
> > your personal naiveté is the coping mechanism
> that
> > works for you, then by all means stay with it.
> > Seriously!
>
>
>
> NO WIRE HANGERS, EVER!!!!

If she's hot, I'm totally taking her side.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

The old adage in assault is 'you take your victim as you find him...' meaning if you jump someone and they have a heart attack YOU are responsible. I wonder if the same rule applies here meaning - if you assault and rob someone and they panic and shoot you YOU are fucked...

The old man made a mistake but the crook asked for it. I say screw the crook. He picked an elderly couple specifically because he thought he had the upper hand. He was counting on prevailing in his violent act - that is premeditated assault and battery. Notice he didnt pick a 6'6" 250 lb 25 year old male - because he is a coward. He could have caused one or both of these elderly folk a broken hip or other serious injury and the jerk would have run away with his $35.00 loot.

Sorry no sympathy here.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/14/2009 10:03AM by dono.

Junes Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Meeper, it's good that you have such blind faith
> in mankind. I'm sure all those people whose
> wallet contents have been used for robberies,
> spending sprees and "recycled" to "give people
> identities and put them to work" also feel they
> have "done a good thing."
>
> Twenty years ago when someone picked a wallet,
> they pulled the cash and tossed the wallet in a
> mail box or a dumpster. There was no further use
> for the contents. Today we live in a different
> world where those contents are worth big bucks,
> and pickpockets know exactly who is buying.
>
> A wallet with $10 in cash can be worth up to $200
> to a pickpocket with the right connections. And
> they DO have those connections.


So shoot first...ask questions later!

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So shoot first...ask questions later!


Certainly easier (and safer) than sitting down with your attacker and quizzing them to see exactly what their intentions are and how far they are willing to go to eliminate witnesses, those kinds of things. So yes, if attacked you solve the problem. If more people shot back, we'd have fewer people attacking. Oh wait, in Virginia we DO.

pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > So shoot first...ask questions later!
>
>
> Certainly easier (and safer) than sitting down
> with your attacker and quizzing them to see
> exactly what their intentions are and how far they
> are willing to go to eliminate witnesses, those
> kinds of things. So yes, if attacked you solve
> the problem. If more people shot back, we'd have
> fewer people attacking. Oh wait, in Virginia we
> DO.


There are lots of reasons for that besides guns.

Junes Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince, you are like a piece of toilet paper stuck
> to the bottom of a shoe. You just keep tagging
> along with no useful purpose or contribution.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

dono Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The old adage in assault is 'you take your victim
> as you find him...' meaning if you jump someone
> and they have a heart attack YOU are responsible.
> I wonder if the same rule applies here meaning -
> if you assault and rob someone and they panic and
> shoot you YOU are fucked...
>
The law doesn't work that way. If the perp is running away and gets shot and killed, the old dude is going up for a manslaughter charge. Otherwise everyone would be trying to take the law into their own hands.

> The old man made a mistake but the crook asked for
> it. I say screw the crook. He picked an elderly
> couple specifically because he thought he had the
> upper hand. He was counting on prevailing in his
> violent act - that is premeditated assault and
> battery. Notice he didnt pick a 6'6" 250 lb 25
> year old male - because he is a coward. He could
> have caused one or both of these elderly folk a
> broken hip or other serious injury and the jerk
> would have run away with his $35.00 loot.
>

The fact is the old guy fired and didn't hit the perp and could have endangered the general public in the process. Nothing about what the old guy did indicates a responsible use of a firearm.

> Sorry no sympathy here.

The law doesn't deal in sympathies. If it did, it wouldn't be the law.

jason Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm sorry, but the perp violated the victims. The
> perp now has the victim's identification, home
> address, phone number, bank accounts, etc. He
> was/is likely to be a victim of this guy again. I
> cheer the victim for shooting this CRIMINAL and
> protecting himself and his wife. One has no idea
> what the perp was planning in the future and if
> the perp had buddies around waiting to finish the
> robbery off.
>
> You guys are nuts if you think we shouldn't be
> able to protect ourselves from criminals. If the
> jerk wasn't pickpocketing he wouldn't have been
> shot at.


QFTMFT. Good Shoot.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pgens Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Vince(1) Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > So shoot first...ask questions later!
> >
> >
> > Certainly easier (and safer) than sitting down
> > with your attacker and quizzing them to see
> > exactly what their intentions are and how far
> they
> > are willing to go to eliminate witnesses, those
> > kinds of things. So yes, if attacked you solve
> > the problem. If more people shot back, we'd
> have
> > fewer people attacking. Oh wait, in Virginia
> we
> > DO.
>
>
> There are lots of reasons for that besides guns.


Really? And what would THAT be?

PresaCanario Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> QFTMFT. Good Shoot.

http://www.acronymfinder.com/~/search/af.aspx?Acronym=QFTMFT&Find=find&string=exact


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> PresaCanario Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > QFTMFT. Good Shoot.
>
> http://www.acronymfinder.com/~/search/af.aspx?Acro
> nym=QFTMFT&Find=find&string=exact
>
>


Gravis-

That's just the sound he makes when he's gagging on his S&M Master's cock.

WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gravis Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > PresaCanario Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > QFTMFT. Good Shoot.
> >
> >
> http://www.acronymfinder.com/~/search/af.aspx?Acro
>
> > nym=QFTMFT&Find=find&string=exact
> >
> >
>
>
> Gravis-
>
> That's just the sound he makes when he's gagging
> on his S&M Master's cock.


Your so tough behind your keyboard.

I had an e-mail conversation with Bernard Goetz a few years ago, and he's a very pleasant guy who seems very sorry that he was involved in that whole mess.

PresaCanario Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your so tough behind your keyboard.



"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."