-
DCUnited08 09/03/2009 8:03:00 AM
A quote that sums up the article:
We continue to be exasperated by the view, apparently gaining momentum in certain circles, that armed robbery is okay as long as nobody gets hurt! The proper solution to armed robbery is a dead robber, on the scene.
-Jeff Cooper
-
JustMe 09/02/2009 8:06:00 AM
So merchants who defend themselves are now "vigilantes"? Obviously the writer of this screed needs to be further acquainted with a dictionary. A "vigilante", as defined by Merriam-Webster is "a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate)".
The article does not describe even a single act of "vigilantism" -- it merely enumerates a list of shopkeepers who defended themselves from criminals who might otherwise have maimed or killed them. Would the article have even been written if the criminals had succeeded in murdering their victims without sustaining harm to themselves? Highly doubtful.
-
george 09/01/2009 11:28:00 PM
What kind of idiot comment is "goes vigilante?"
These people were protecting their property and their lives - not acting as judge jury and executioner.
Easy on the drama - just stick to the facts. Let people sort out their own spin.
-
Terry 09/01/2009 10:16:00 PM
Gus -
"Vigilante", really? Sounds more like the old "easy" targets have woken up to the fact that they're getting knocked off a little too often and have decided to defend themselves. I applaud their efforts - and shame on you for the hysteria-inducing title.
-
Fister 09/01/2009 9:40:00 PM
Well then... I've got an idea...
Let's put journalists in the shoes of the clerks.
So many journalists put such a slant on things. Whatever empathy they have, they have it for the poor mugger or armed robber whose plans were thwarted by the person who would NOT allow him/herself to be a victim.
So, to all POS journalists who try to paint these people who defend themselves... put yourselves in their position. Do so without any means of protection.
-
parabarbarian 09/01/2009 8:18:00 PM
Come on people! If clerks start killing robbers then what would reporters have to write about? A dead clerk is a news story because people care when the innocent are harmed. A dead thug is a half inch on the obituary page.
-
Jim 09/01/2009 8:16:00 PM
Wow, I wonder if the author, or editor have ever heard of writing a news article that includes facts and doesn't include the slant they wish to convey. Your unsubtle use of language shows nothing but contempt for law abiding citizens who defend themselves against scum on a daily basis.
As journalist's it is your job and even your mandate to present the facts of the story in a neutral and non-biased manner, people are not stupid, they are tired, tired of being afraid of criminals in every manner as they go about their daily lives, and tired of so called Journalists that only want to push their own social and political beliefs. Which is why ratings and subscriptions are down for newspapers and media networks all over the country except the ones that actually are fair and balanced.
-
Fister 09/01/2009 8:02:00 PM
I don't see any vigilantism about any of that.
They would be vigilantes if they went out hunting for criminals. In this case the criminals went hunting for them and got more than they bargained for.
People learn (yes, even criminals).
Disarm the public, criminals learn that the public becomes prey. Arm the public and give them the Castle Doctrine and the "Stand your ground" law... criminals will learn the risks of their profession. I have no sympathy for someone who predates upon others.
Anyone who does not want public to carry can choose not to carry. No one has the right to prevent me from defending myself and my family.
-
Wildfire 08/25/2009 9:10:00 PM
I love stories, like these, with happy endings!
Cops gave NO DUTY TO PROTECT INDIVIDUALS, as is clearly show by these court rulings:
Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (no federal constitutional requirement that police provide protection)
Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Calogrides v. Mobile, 846 (no liability for failure to arrest or to retain arrested person in custody)
Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977); Ill. Rec. Stat. 4-102 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Wuetrich V. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382, A.2d 929, 930 cert. denied 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Besides: Why should a cop risk his life, to protect something that the owner is unwilling to protect?
Each felon that died while committing their crime; made society just a little bit safer and just a little bit better.
-
Wildfire 08/25/2009 8:58:00 PM
I love stories, like these, with happy endings!
Cops gave NO DUTY TO PROTECT INDIVIDUALS, as is clearly show by these court rulings:
Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (no federal constitutional requirement that police provide protection)
Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Calogrides v. Mobile, 846 (no liability for failure to arrest or to retain arrested person in custody)
Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977); Ill. Rec. Stat. 4-102 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Wuetrich V. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382, A.2d 929, 930 cert. denied 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Besides: Why should a cop risk his life, to protect something that the owner is unwilling to protect?
Each felon that died while committing their crime; made society just a little bit safer and just a little bit better.
-
Susita 08/20/2009 12:50:00 AM
Get a vocabulary people! Vigilante is not a derogatory term and is 100% perfectly apropos to this article and the people interviewed. To wit, it means "a volunteer who maintains order where an efficient legal system does not exist."
-
Jim Beam 08/19/2009 3:42:00 AM
The term vigilante is not accurate in this instance. The author is obviously ignorant of its meaning. I am at a loss to understand why this person is employed as a (supposedly) non-fiction writer.
-
Matt 08/18/2009 5:48:00 AM
I work at a gas station in one of the top 20 most dangerous cities in the country. For a long time I worked exclusively nights, and now once or twice a week. I always have my sidearm under my shirt. The way our station is designed, the only weapon it makes sense to rob us with is a gun. That means my life will be in danger if someone tries to rob us. I hope I never have to, but I fully intend to defend my life should the time come. These people were completely justified in shooting the goblins.
-
Kevin Baker 08/17/2009 8:59:00 PM
There's a difference between vigilantism and self defense. Defending oneself from a criminal is not vigilantism, and the author of this piece should know better than to accuse these store owners and workers of it.
-
Joated 08/17/2009 7:24:00 PM
What a biased piece of tripe! The author has chosen words to describe the lawful that are usually reserved for the "alleged perpetrators" of evil deeds. Both the author and the editor who approved publication need to rethink their stance. With whom would they side if they were one of the group being herded into a back room by a gun weilding thief probably intent on removing witnesses?
-
Molon Labe 08/17/2009 7:18:00 PM
Geesh, from the tone of this article, you'd think the writer has a problem with law-abiding citizens exercising their 2A rights for self defense.
-
Barry Hirsh 08/16/2009 6:16:00 AM
Vigilantism is the taking of the law into one's own hands. Self-defense isn't vigilantism. Additionally, it is entirely lawful for a person to use deadly force to stop a forceable felony, hence it also is not vigilantism.
The characterization of these events as vigilantism is one of two things: 1) ignorance, or 2) deliberate ideological demagoguery.
Neither is attractive.
-
don 08/16/2009 6:09:00 AM
the bad guys got what was coming to them
the way you wrote your story sounds like you are vilifying
the good guys
i think Florida should allow open carry
-
Bill Gray 08/16/2009 3:39:00 AM
The headline is completely wrong. There is no vigilantism in these incidents. A vigilante dishes out violence after the crime, after the danger is over, to avenge the crime. What we have here is self defense where a law abiding citizen stopped a crime in progress to save him/herself or others from great injury or death. The laws of every State plus Federal law allows for self defense using necessary force (including deadly force) where a blmeless person reasonably fears great injury or death from a criminal act. There is no crime in surviving a criminal attack.
-
Ogrrre 08/16/2009 2:11:00 AM
"Vigilante"? "blood-soaked"? "Whacked"? Biased much? The fact is, everyone of these goblins would be alive today if they hadn't been trying to rob/rape/kill someone else. If they had been minding their own business, obeying the law, they would be alive today. These little goblins committed suicide as far as I am concerned. Their families should be required to pay for any couseling that might be required by your so-called vigilantes.
-
Silver Poet 08/16/2009 1:45:00 AM
I think the store clerks have the right to defend themselves. I don't think I'd call them vigilantes at all. They are merely maintaining and preserving order and placing a real and immediate limit on the criminal's ability to succeed.
-
PavePusher 08/16/2009 12:59:00 AM
Self-defense against physical danger of robbery is NOT "vigilante-ism"
Mr. Garcia-Roberts is a fool, and a hysterical, hand-wringing fool at that.
-
JohnH 08/15/2009 11:35:00 PM
Two months after that, the manager of a Naranja grocery store killed a 14-year-old ski-masked robber strapped with what turned out to be a BB gun.
No matter if it was a rock, knife, club, BB gun, or howitzer, it was still armed robbery. I'm sure that viewed from the muzzle end, in the heat of the moment, it looked just like a real gun, wouldn't that have been the kids intent? Shoving a water pistol in someones face would have got him a spanking, not money. Kid was in a ski mask, in Flordia no less. No doubt he was up to no good, and by hiding his face, and therefore his age, just what was the manager supposed to think, the kid was cold?
How about the blatantly obvious, the kid knew what he was doing was wrong and didn't want to be identified as the thief and the manager saw the robbery attempt for what it really was. The youth took his chances and lost. One less to do it again to someone else. Far be it from me to cry over someone who dies as a result of thier own actions.
-
BambiB 08/15/2009 9:01:00 PM
The author needs to look up the word "vigilante".
Clearly, all these citizens were acting within the law when they shot criminal engaged in robbery.
Still, an interesting article.
-
Herb Martin 08/15/2009 2:28:00 PM
The writer and editor of this article are incompetent -- in the English language and as reporters.
Self-defense and preventing on-going violent felonies are never "vigilante" acts. Such acts require (most of) acting as police, prosecutor, judge, and jury.
The perpetrators described by this article are the FELONS attempting to rob and perhaps kill innocent people.
-
Rob 08/12/2009 1:29:00 AM
You need to buy a dictionary. Self-defense is NOT vigilantism. A "vigilante" is someone who seeks to avenge a crime already committed. An act of vigilantism would be hunting down criminals after the fact. It is a highly offensive term when applied to people who are simply defending their own lives against an on-going and immediate threat by an armed felon. I understand that a significant proportion of our population has seen fit to deny their own responsibilities for their own safety, but to label those who haven't with an inflammatory incorrect moniker is an even more despicable act of cowardice.
-
Albert Hopper 08/11/2009 12:50:00 AM
Unfortunately your reporter is ignorant of the differences between a "vigilante" who taking the law into his own hands, goes looking for criminals upon which to bring his personal form of justice.
The individuals who were described as vigilantes in that article were in fact citizens who were merely exercising their right to self defense while facing armed criminals.
An armed criminal who herds his victims into the back of the store is likely to have murder on his mind.
If he is dispatched by one of those victims before he gets around to killing them; all well and good.
It's a shame to see distortions of truth in a newspaper such as yours.
-
Soverign 08/10/2009 11:31:00 AM
wrote Shirley Riettie. "I am very grateful that you didn't take his life. I know it would have been justified."
WOW, the perps mom gets it. To bad she did not instill that lesson to her son. Well perhaps he learned his lesson.
Look it up, Police do not have a legal responsibility to protect you as an individual but rather to keep the peace for the general population.
So who then is it left up to for your personal or family's well being, YOU.
-
Ragnar D. 08/09/2009 10:15:00 PM
Note to Gus Garcia-Roberts
1. Buy a dictionary
2. Learn to use it
3. Use the correct words when writing.
4. Look up 'vigilante' and learn a new word, then consider writing a correction for your story. If, that is, you have the intellectual honesty journalists profess to have.
-
Capt.Jerry 08/09/2009 5:44:00 AM
It's apparent that your article has no respect for our constitutional right to bear arms.
The clerks and owners are the Instant Responders the police are the First Responders. Think about instant versus unpredictable response time.
What's their life worth?
-
Native1Son 08/09/2009 3:20:00 AM
A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity. (Sigmund freud.)
-
Allan 08/09/2009 1:08:00 AM
How can you say this is vigilantly? Since when is self defense anything other than the preservation of life? I say Bravo for these store keeps that are willing to stop the rampant disregard for law. The cops won't do it, so someone has to.
-
Dennis 08/09/2009 1:00:00 AM
They are certainly not "vigilantes." They are law abiding citizens. They are guaranteed the right to defend themselves, and they were forced to invoke it. If only every store clerk had a firearm and the skill/knowledge to use it, crime rates would drop dramatically.
-
ProCCW 08/08/2009 11:57:00 PM
If the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed in the constitution makes me a vigilante, so damn be it.
I think your employee's should try reading the constitution sometime.
Then they would know what makes this country so great.
A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity. (Sigmund freud.)
-
Packindaheat 08/08/2009 11:34:00 PM
Curious as to why you demonize gunowners as vigilantes?
Do we not deserve the right to self preservation?
Is it wrong to protect that which is ours?
-
Linda Ostashev 08/08/2009 8:05:00 PM
Actually, Vigilante is the proper word, as a broad definition of a vigilante is a self-appointed doer of justice.
Mostly though, they were simply protecting themselves and/or their loved ones since the police are simply unable to do that job, because the cop is across town and the killer is there.
It's been said before: "I carry a gun because carrying a cop is not an reasonable option."
I'm sure you don't want to kill for the contents of a cash register, but ask yourself, do you want to die for the contents of a cash register? Because there's someone out there who is more than willing to kill you for it, unless you kill them first.
-
Jay 08/08/2009 4:25:00 AM
Maybe if these scumbags would stop robbing people or flashing guns like the idiots they are, there wouldnt be a problem. Im tired of good guys getting slammed while the punks get a pass when it was THEIR own actions and decisions that prompted the results
-
Monica 08/06/2009 6:45:00 PM
Good for the store employees / managers. YAY!!!! Get them all!!!
-
P Alfonso 08/06/2009 3:20:00 AM
Vigilante is the wrong term to use.
When citizens confront criminals is for survival and not for revenge.
Expect to see a massive increase in this behavior as law enforcement will be overwhelmed by those braking the law.
A breakdown on the economy will turn it into survival of the fittest and each man for himself.
Criminals better be prepared to face law abiding citizens.
-
Ruben Sanchez 08/06/2009 1:51:00 AM
I have a small business and always have a 9mm pistal loaded with bullets with legal conseal weapon permit. If someone trying to rob me or endanger some other citizens else, I had no hesitation to greet him with bullets.
Self defence first, then whatever laws later. There would have no 2nd chance.
-
jason Ho 08/06/2009 1:42:00 AM
Very good, shoot those animals who trying to rob.
Period
-
Bob Collins 08/05/2009 4:59:00 AM
Oh yeah, why are these clerks called vigilante? They are within the law to do such things. Vigilantes are outside of the law.
Another example of the media telling you incorrect things It is part of the dumbing-down of society.
-
Bob Collins 08/05/2009 4:57:00 AM
Perhaps as more people stand their ground the thugs will learn that crime does not pay. And in all honesty, if more of these thugs are killed while committing crimes will we as society really miss them? I thought not. Congrats to those who do the right thing and protect themselves and their families.
-
Rausky 08/05/2009 3:20:00 AM
Hey if I was a clerk working and some punk tries to rob me,I won't think twice about blasting them with a gun>. This is the law of the jungle, and I'll defend my freakin jungle.Noboy,nobody is gonna rob me!! If I have to kill some lowlife's brains out,I don't care!! Better them dead than me!! An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,I don't believe in turning the other cheek!! Hey I don't even believe in giving the first cheek!! I'd rather smash a lowlife's cheek anytime!!!
-
Rausky 08/05/2009 3:20:00 AM
Hey if I was a clerk working and some punk tries to rob me,I won't think twice about blasting them with a gun>. This is the law of the jungle, and I'll defend my freakin jungle.Noboy,nobody is gonna rob me!! If I have to kill some lowlife's brains out,I don't care!! Better them dead than me!! An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,I don't believe in turning the other cheek!! Hey I don't even believe in giving the first cheek!! I'd rather smash a lowlife's cheek anytime!!!