©
By Alicia P.Q. Wittmeyer
VIRGINIA BEACH
Ferdinando Abbondante wanted the masked man to go for the cash register.
When a man carrying a gun sneaked into Dominick’s Pizza and Pasta just after 10 p.m. Saturday and demanded that he open his safe, Abbondante tried to tell him that there was no money in there, that he should go for the register instead.
“I told him to walk to the register, get the money, leave my store, and no one would get hurt,” said Abbondante, who owns the pizza shop. “In a situation like this, they see the money, they’re going to be happy and walk away.”
The man had his gun trained on one of the restaurant’s employees, Abbondante said, and kept insisting: “Open the safe! Open the safe!”
The safe was where Abbondante, a former security officer, kept his handgun, which he carried with him when he left the restaurant at night with the day’s receipts. If he opened it, he thought, the man would see the gun and start shooting. But he didn’t see any other choice.
So Abbondante opened the safe. The man fired once, and missed, Abbondante said. He fired back – he doesn’t remember how many times – killing the intruder.
“I’m not proud of it, because when you kill a person, you take somebody else’s life. That’s not good at all. Nobody wants to do that,” he said. “But in this case, I’m happy. I think I saved my life and my employees’ lives.”
Police on Monday identified the man who was killed as Johnny Marocco Williams, 41, of Winder Court in Hampton.
Dominick’s was closed Sunday as employees worked into the night, scrubbing the restaurant with the help of a professional cleaning crew. Abbondante said he plans to reopen today.
The shooting was something that employee Ravyn Pearce says she never wants to go through again.
“It was so shocking. It was insane,” said Pearce, who at one time had the gun pointed at her. “People always say, 'If I was in that situation …’ but you never know what you’re going to do.”
Alicia Wittmeyer, (757) 222-5216, alicia.wittmeyer@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
Phrog
I never made the argument that the founding fathers supported abortion or separation of church and state. You attributed that argument to me, and then requested I defend it. Further, you equivalated that straw man argument to a completely different premise. I made the argument that, in general, the founding fathers instituted the second amendment in response to government, you denied that. The premise of your straw man argument was that the founding fathers didnt support two other common interpretations of the constitution, dispite me NEVER making the claim they did. So not only did you hit me with the straw man fallacy, but also the old A sometimes leads to B and A and C are equal, so C must always lead to B. May I suggest never going in to the legal field.
You can do better than that
I gave you 4 quotes which you dispute entirely. You gave me none. I asked about 2 issues. You sort of addressed one. Come on, I thought you were this great constitutional scholar that had the insight and intellect of our founding fathers and all supreme court justices. Then you gave me the cop out line “…but are also influenced heavily by politics at the same time.” Give me a break.
You have proven yourself and I have nothing further to say to you.
Phrog
I do know that the founding fathers were largely for seperation of church and state, you can tell this by their writing and beliefs, particuliarly Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Regardless, I dont know what claim you are making....is it that these were also Supreme Court interpretations? Yes, I agree, a huge majority of constitutional law was the Supreme Courts interpretation of the Constitution and its Amendments. But its just that, interpretation. The only difference is, the Supreme Court has constitutional power to interpret how they wish, but are also influenced heavily by politics at the same time.
Enlighten us.
Coolguy, my guess is that you are vastly more intellectually superior that anyone who posts regarding this issue. So, using your logic, where in the Constitution does it specifically state that there is “separation of church and state” or the “woman’s right to kill an unborn child”? Please use more than one credible “founding father” or “framer” of our Constitution. That is the exact same criteria you have set for myself and John. And it cannot be a cut and past from NOW, Planned Parenthood, The Alliance for the Separation of Church and State, or any other group of that sort.
Please use your own logic and that of our founding fathers.
John
Once again, almost every quote you cut and pasted from your favorite NRA site, has NO definition of what one is intended to defend themself from. Since almost all of them include "the state" in the same breath, I imagine it is largely refering to attacks from foreign or internal bodies, not simple street criminals or home invaders. Over the years, the Supreme Court has INTERPRETED the Constitution to the belief that gun possession is a right in any facet, just as you have INTERPRETED the meaning of those quotes you provided to mean what you want them to, regardless of their true meaning.
The States believed guns were for personal defense
From State constitutions at the time or just after the Bill of Rights was ratified: CT--Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state(1820). KY--[T]he right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned(1792). PA--The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned(1790). RI--The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed(1842). TN--[T]he freemen of this State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defence(1796). VT--[T]he people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State...(1777). Here's similar wording to the part of the Second Amendment gun-haters said limited gun rights to the militia: RI State Free Press Clause: "The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person m
Phrog
Because you could find ONE man who could be considered a founding father, who believes that guns are for self defense, does not make you correct. Here is a bit of a free education for you though, logical fallacy. Most of us with educations try to avoid the pitfall of, "Adams is a founding father, Adams believes a certain way, so all founding fathers believe that way". So, it might be of more value for you to offer your "education" to some one who more respects your educational or intellectual level.
Shame on me -
Okay, my last post was censored because of it’s demeaning tone. So, I’ll play nice.
Coolguy, there can be many interpretations of even the simplest of intentions. When I read this story, compare it with the 2nd Amendment, I have the interpretation that self-defense is ONE of the reasons our founding fathers implemented the 2nd Amendment.
But I must remind you, that in an earlier post, your, yourself, said “If you look at all of the available writing from the times surrounding the amendment, not once is it mentioned, that I can find, that it was imperative to possess firearms to defend oneself from other civilians.” I gave you 4 quotes that I could find in 10 minutes or less. But, even in your arguing about the 4, you still admitted to 1 relating directly to self-defense. I'm just being a nice guy and giving you a free education.
Let's simplify this
A choice was made when the robber picked up the gun. As reasonable people, we know it is taboo to walk into the back door of any establishment without invitation. Wearing a mask in public is illegal as well. Are some of you suggesting we stop intruders and have them psychoanylized before shooting them? His intentions do not matter. When you pick up that gun and walk through someone elses door you should be shot. period.
Now get out to that guys pizza shop and show your support buy buying a slice.
Phrog
Quotes 3 and 4 do not mention "self defense" at all. Quote 3 provides no reason as to the use or reason for the firearms that man shouldnt be debarred from. Quote 4 fails to mention what this "evil interference" is.
Without further context, this is simply your translations of these quotes.