Beach pizza shop owner fatally shoots robber, police say

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Kerry Dougherty writes that the robber was HIV positive and his blood splattered on one of the employees when he died (not sure how). So there will be follow-ups here, too. Thankfully the employee should be okay unless he himself had an open wound (and I don't think the robber had inflicted any of those). Cheers, MGM

squirrelly wrote:

it might also take 30 years to get rid of the guns, but at some point it would be difficult for even the criminals to obtain a weapon...

Like abortion, guns will never be outlawed in this country.

go to Europe and read the paper, you don't hear about this happening, but in the States, it happens each and every day. Almost a way of life...

Don't read too many European newspapers, obviously. I have family in the UK, New Zealand and Australia. Every day you read of a gun crime; unfortunately, the only owners of guns in these countries are criminals.

and for you gun nuts... most Europeans aren't sitting in the basements concerned that their gov't is planning to take over...

Because they already have for the most part...

cboath:
to answer your questions (from the shop owners wife) . . . the back door was open because that is the door the delivery driver uses to come and go. Everyone was already in the office when the robber got there because it was payday and Abbondante was getting ready to pay the employees that were there. It seems to me like the robber might have known a little bit about the operations there and may have had this planned out.

Does it really matter if the guy fired first or not? He was there robbing the shop and pointing a gun at everyone. He was directly threatening the lives of Abbondante and his employees. Should Abbondante have waited until the robber actually shot someone to take action? Think about if it was one of your children in that shop. Wouldn't you have wanted them to be protected?

Submitted by Maynard Krebs on Mon, 06/30/2008 at 6:04 am.
Just think what would have happened if the robber hadn't missed...this hardly seems like a case for gun nuts to crow about.

Yeah, just think! Nevermind what actually happened.

Have yet again more proof that they're WRONG. And that gun-haters oppose people's ability to defend their lives from criminals. There can be nothing less humane, heartless and discriminatory than denying people the right to defend themselves from criminals. Yet many losers still embrace such a cowardly position.

about Ryan Fredrick...give it a rest and let the system work...

Slight difference in your 2 situations. The pizza robber guy had a gun and was trying to commit a crime when he barged in to the restaurant. The Ryan Frederick case you are implying had police officers serving a search warrant. And (although there is differing reports) the police shouted "POLICE POLICE".

I asked how would the public would respond if it were a criminal instead of the police and am not suprised by the outcome.

A person walks into your "personal space" and points a gun at you. You fire at the person and kill him. You are a hero. But a person breaks into your "personal space" while you are sleeping because a criminal told them you may have something illegal in your garage. You fire at the person and kill him. You are taken to jail, branded a murderer, and sit waiting for your punishment. What a fine line that walk is.

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." Thomas Jefferson.

"Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't." Thomas Jefferson.

So if the robber would have entered and immediately shot everyone, then the threat of the armed citizen would be eliminated. Granted, he wouldn't have access to the safe. Did the hero get a chance to pull off the guys skee mask and spit on him before he died? Wonder what the robbers motivation was... I wonder if we will see more robberies as people's ARM loans continue to adjust.

Where did Commies get involved?

Have a new HERO!

People make choices in life. The criminal in this case made a choice to try and rob the pizza joint. The operators of the place chose to leave the back door open for added ventilation. The owner made a choice to put his pistol in the safe for safe keeping and to remind himself to take it with him when he made deposits. The criminal made the choice to go after the safe instead of the cash in the register, which ultimately led to his death.

Pray tell the store owner is not charged for defending his life or that of his employees. I'm certain the fact that he took another person's life is going to bother him enough.

I enjoy reading the posts people add to these stories because sometimes there is a bit of insight beyond the story released by the Pilot. Occasionally, there are comments from readers that allow folks like me to gain a better consensus of public sentiment with regards to a particular story.
Often, however, some folks find the Pilot's comments section to be a place to match wits with another half-wit and take over the comment section with a lot of off-topic ranting about something. Surely there are better forums for the likes of these folks. My 2 cents.

Sir you are a brave man,you put your life on the line to protect the lives of other decent people. Thank you for taking out that oxygen taker.

coolguy, I beg to differ. Quotes 1, 3, and 4 are most certainly directed for the exercise of self-defense - whether it be from a tyrannical government or an armed robber who attempts to deprive innocent, hard working citizens of the fruits of their own labor.

Man walks in with gun to rob store - man gets shot by owner protecting his employees' lives and his own life.
There is no question - this is self defense. No grand jury would ever "true bill" this brave store owner.
Would this man have killed anyone in his way - you betcha!

1. My response about communism had nothing to do with my beliefs, but was a rebuttal to yet another person who has no clue what they are talking about when casually tossing about the word communism and painting it as a failed evil of the world.

2. All the quotes but one which you listed have nothing to do with the individual use of firearms in relation to self defense, and the remaining one could be debated as to its intention. Yes, many founding fathers DID appreciate the freedom to possess a fire arm, that is not in any dispute. If I had the time, Id post you countless links of opinions and debate surrounding the second amendment, pre-civil war. You will see it almost universally centered around defense from tyranny and the peoples right to it.

coolguy, this is hardly the forum to be discussing your worship of the communist manifesto.

The fact is, this is a country based on individual liberties. The store owner exercised his natural instinct for survival as well as his constitutionally protected right to make that decision.

Fact is, Karl Marx is dead…so is the robber who was a threat to the innocent people in our community.

We love our liberties here.