Jump to content

Arlington VA - Employee defends self, why not go out back door?


mab22

Recommended Posts

Developing -

https://grabien.com/story.php?id=281313

 

"Not only that, the people upstairs, do you know what the police officer told him? Why didn’t you run out the back door? And guess what. When we checked the back door there was a book bag with two rocks and a pole. If you would have ran out the back he would have met up with the three masked men and there he probably would have shot all three of them. Then what, do 60 years in jail? This is absurd.”

 

Store was arlington smoke shop.

 

Coverage of story here -

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6146169559001

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://wjla.com/news/local/arlington-employee-charged-shooting-robbers-owner-speaks-out

 

 

 

...

The charges are malicious wounding, reckless handling of a firearm, and violation of a protective order. Arlington County Police say the third charge is because Abushariah had been ordered not to have a firearm.

...

 

 

Looks like they were not HIS gun/guns, the store owner bought for protection of the store.

So, if there is a firearm available are you not allowed to use it to protect yourself? Even Illinois stays you can give someone a firearm in the heat of the moment, provided they are allowed to possess one, which gets messy in a situation like this.

This should be an interesting case

 

“Aqrawi says he bought two firearms a few weeks ago because he was concerned someone would try to steal from his store during the coronavirus pandemic.“We bought protection for the store just in case, because on Facebook you see a lot of robberies, a lot of things going on,” Aqrawi said. “

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't see any dispute that the employee was in possession of the firearm when he fired it.

If he knows where it is a d is faced with 3 masked home invaders, I would tend to term that an extenuating circumstance ...
I might even view it as competing harms but that's for the court to decide, not the responding officers.

If he is being held without bail, it would seem that at least one court has already pre determined it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If he is being held without bail, it would seem that at least one court has already pre determined it

And you think there was some sort of plot to accomplish that?

No. I think there are activist prosecutors and judges whose minds only work in one direction on certain subjects. Take, for example, the kid who was jailed without bail as a terrorist for having his range guns in the trunk on a college campus recently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No. I think there are activist prosecutors and judges whose minds only work in one direction on certain subjects. Take, for example, the kid who was jailed without bail as a terrorist for having his range guns in the trunk on a college campus recently.

So pre-determined might not be the best way to describe the lack of bail?

I didn't say that, either. Denying bond on a clear case of self-defense speaks volumes, unless the guy has a violent criminal history that hasn't been reported.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say that, either. Denying bond on a clear case of self-defense speaks volumes, unless the guy has a violent criminal history that hasn't been reported.

"Pre-determined" was the term you used.

 

Maybe we can agree that it's likely we don't have all the details, like that potentially violent past being unreported that you mentioned (though they did report the order of protection which implies the possibility of a violent past).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...