College student, carrying legally, has shootout with armed robber

J

jimpeel

New member
He was shot in the stomach and the robber, who is fifteen, was shot in the chest and leg. Two accomplices fled. The shooting occurred outside of off-campus housing.

The key quote from the article is "Students are not allowed to carry firearms on the campus of Temple University ..."

There is also a video at the link.

SOURCE

Pennsylvania College Student With License to Carry Firearm Exchanges Gunfire With Alleged Robber

Published September 06, 2011 FoxNews.com

...

Authorities say 21-year-old Temple University student Robert Eells had a license to carry the weapon and will not face any charges in the incident, MyFoxPhilly.com reports.

<MORE>
Click to expand...
 
Yes, robberies have become more common around the college campuses in Atlanta. I would expect to see more students defending themselves, but since they are not allowed to carry on campus it creates a quandary for them. Most of the crime happens while they are walking to and from class and most likely carrying computers, calculators, MP3 Players, and even books that have been stolen. If they exercise their right to carry they could get suspended from school or even arrested for violating the no carry on campus regulations. It kind of makes these kids sitting ducks for criminals. :mad:
 
It's a good thing he lived off campus, otherwise the defenders of political correctness (sometimes I really miss the barf smiley) would have their way with him or, worse yet, he'd have been unarmed and helpless.

While active shooter situations like Virginia Tech grab more headlines, incidents like this, as Glenn E. Meyer has pointed out before, are probably the more compelling evidence that banning carry on campuses is a bad idea.
 
1:30 am, approached by three teens ? I would have seen it coming and gone into the building quickly.
 
After reading the article and the following one (see below), I am trying to figure out why it matters that the permit holder was a college student since this was not a campus incident and it didn't happen in college housing and he was't involved in any sort of college event. I also can't figure out why it matters that he had a permit since he was apparently still on his own property where a permit would not even be needed.

Basically, what you have is a homeowner/tenant defending himself against a robbery in his own yard.

http://www.phillyburbs.com/my_town/...cle_cdf5decf-b2ac-504d-a169-abc463e0c1a6.html
 
Im always pro-gun, but would a bunch of 21 year old drunk college kids with pistols help in the fight for our gun rights?
 
Im always pro-gun, but would a bunch of 21 year old drunk college kids with pistols help in the fight for our gun rights?
Click to expand...

Not all college kids are irresponsible drunk fraternity and sorority brats. When I was in college I drank in moderation (still do) and was pretty responsible. I knew plenty of other college students that were very responsible too. And at 21 we were not "kids," we were legal adults capable of entering into contracts, voting, and serving society in a civic capacity (ie. Jury duty). So why would you want us to be defenseless?

I don't see a problem with a 21 year old having the ability to defend himself against a criminal who is intent in killing or violently attacking the college student to take his money or other personal property. I hate to break it to you, but 21 year old thugs will still own illegal guns and kill others regardless of what the on-campus weapons laws are, so why shouldn't a 21 year old law abiding citizen have the ability to defend himself against the on-campus criminal thugs that seek to do him harm?
 
who said anything about "drunk college kids"?

So I guess that it's ok for 18 year olds to die for your rights, but it's not ok for 21 year olds to defend themselves? How old is old enough for you? 25? 30?40?
It may come as a shock, but not all people under 25 are drunken losers. And by instantly coming to that conclusion, you show yourself as not friendly to the 2nd amendment, for what makes you any different from the gun grabbers who think that they should restrict gun rights for everyone except for those that they deem "appropriate". You're all for gun rights for people "you" think should have them.

Because afterall, we civilians aren't experienced/mature/calm enough to have deadly weapons to defend ourselves.
 
Not all college kids are irresponsible drunk fraternity and sorority brats... I knew plenty of other college students that were very responsible too... And at 21 we were not "kids," we were legal adults capable of entering into contracts, voting, and serving society in a civic capacity (ie. Jury duty). So why would you want us to be defenseless?
Click to expand...
Emphatic +1. We always see the "drunk & disorderly" argument thrown around when this topic is discussed, and I don't think it holds water. Two points:
  • I have yet to see a credible scientific study proving that 21yo college students are more prone to drunken, disorderly, and dangerous behavior than the 21yo population in general. I would wager the opposite.
  • In the absence of compelling evidence demonstrating that disarming college students is necessary for the public good (see above), we're left with anecdotal stereotyping. If we use this criteria to disarm broad swaths of the population to "keep them safe", we're recycling the same bogus excuses used in past decades to disarm racial minorities, the poor, "dangerous" social groups (a description frequently used to demonize organized labor in order to persecute union members), political opponents of the party currently in power, etc.
This is NOT the way forward. :mad:
 
As a 23 year old near college graduate, dating a 22 year old college graduate, I do resent the notion that all college kids are drunken fools. Hell, I ould say that my fraternity was probably the most responsible group of guys I have met outside of my military experience, and I stand by the notion, and will until the day I die, that if one or two guys, or girls, like the Lady Friend, who is also in a sorority by the way, would have been able to legally carry Virginia Tech wouldn't have been such a tragedy.

I was a recently returned Afghanistan veteran when I got my CCW permit. I was also, a "frat boy", as much as a deride that term, and I certainly wasn't about to go shoot up the local watering hole after a few too many bourbon and cokes.
 
Stereotype much?

Im always pro-gun, but would a bunch of 21 year old drunk college kids with pistols help in the fight for our gun rights?
Click to expand...

Always pro-gun?

Or pro-"folks you like" with guns?

If they abide by the laws (which generally preclude carrying while intoxicated), then they are law abiding folk- they ought to be able to Carry, regardless of whether they are college students, are gay, have pink and purple hair, metal studs in the noses (or other places!) are tattooed, or are Mormon, or Vegetarian, or ........... WHATEVER.....

Your stereotype ("a bunch of 21 year old drunk college students") is as wrongheaded as the BradyBunch's "gun-totin' rednecks" ........

Self Defense is a Human Right: People should be able defend their Life, Liberty and Property, so long as they follow the laws governing that. If the laws restrict that, we need to get them changed.

....."Liberty for Me and Not for Thee"? Hypocrisy.
 
Glad he defended himself, hope he comes out OK didnt he get shot himself?

Sounds like he is a smart kid with a good head on hios shoulder, a plus for all gun owners.

I drank way more in high school than I did in college.... Iowa legal age was 18 when I was 18 :) nebr was 19... I'm old.....
 
Im always pro-gun, but would a bunch of 21 year old drunk college kids with pistols help in the fight for our gun rights?
Click to expand...

What makes you think that the 21 year old young men and women would be any more prone to drunken and irresponsible behavior on a college campus than they would be in any of the other public places that they can already carry a handgun? What I think is lost here is that we're not talking about arming anyone who couldn't already do so themselves, we're just talking about allowing those who have already gone through the process and have been deemed responsible enough to carry a handgun by their state to carry that handgun on to a college campus.

The "drunken frat boy" stereotype gets thrown around a lot when this topic comes up. However, like the shrill screaming about "wild west shootouts" over parking spaces when CC was first debated, it hasn't come to pass in the places that have instituted it. Not all college students are Bluto and D-Day and it isn't right to deprive all of them their basic right to self-defense because of the few that do fit that stereotype.
 
"I am trying to figure out why it matters that the permit holder was a college student since this was not a campus incident . . . "

It is just a good descriptor, same as saying janitor, barber or doctor.


" I also can't figure out why it matters that he had a permit since he was apparently still on his own property where a permit would not even be needed."

Playing up that the guy is a permit holder is a good thing, it reinforces that he is the good guy.

" So I guess that it's ok for 18 year olds to die for your rights, but it's not ok for 21 year olds to defend themselves? "

There is a difference between a 18 Yo in the army ( under constant supervision, possibly more than while growing up ) and sub 21 on their own. There are parts of the brain that are not fully developed until mid 20s that have to do with impulse control, inhibitions and realizing there are ramifications for ones actions. For some, this portion is never fully developed.

Responsibility / gaining individual freedoms is a gradual process where each step is doled out according to anticipated growth.

"How old is old enough for you? 25? 30?40? It may come as a shock, but not all people under 25 are drunken losers. "

I agree not all under 25 are drunken losers, but there is a greater chance someone under 25 will be irresponsible. If not for a still forming brain maybe for lack of experience.

25 seems to be the young adult level, auto insurance companies and car rental businesses seem to agree.
 
" So I guess that it's ok for 18 year olds to die for your rights, but it's not ok for 21 year olds to defend themselves? "

There is a difference between a 18 Yo in the army ( under constant supervision, possibly more than while growing up ) and sub 21 on their own. There are parts of the brain that are not fully developed until mid 20s that have to do with impulse control, inhibitions and realizing there are ramifications for ones actions. For some, this portion is never fully developed.

Responsibility / gaining individual freedoms is a gradual process where each step is doled out according to anticipated growth.
Click to expand...

I have to take slight issue with this. The inequality that I see in the current system is that while certain rights are restricted to those over the age of 21, criminal charges and penalties as well as certain legal responsibilities for 18-20 year-olds are generally the same as those 21 or older. The way I look at it, if one is not old enough to enjoy the full rights of a citizen, then he or she should not bear full responsibility such as military conscription (one still has to register with selective service at 18), jury duty, financial liability, or adult criminal law.
 
thanx for posting followup article double; I was reading the comments after the story too.

prime example why law-abiding citizens carry. the man was lucky though..refusing to give money can get you killed and it isn't worth it when you are at gunpoint.
 
"I am trying to figure out why it matters that the permit holder was a college student since this was not a campus incident . . . "

The college student/permit holder part matters because of how the universities and the city of Philadelphia handle Law Enforcement duties. With the way they have it set up, Philly PD has jurisdiction over everything, but UPenn PD, Drexel PD, and Temple PD run normal patrols off of university property and often outside of those areas as they are granted jurisdiction in return. Most likely it was a University officer that was first on scene.

On a side note, UPenn SWAT is ranked as one of the top SWAT teams in the state of PA, among all agencies, not just university teams, and UPenn SWAT is usually the first team on site with anything in that part of town regardless of university property or not.

My location might show Montana, but I grew up in Philly, and my mom still works for UPenn very closely with their PD.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top