NYC store shoots holdup men, NY Times

TABING

New member
May 24, 2000


Queens Store Owner Shoots Man as He
and Two Others Rob Her

By ANDY NEWMAN

A woman who owns an electronics store in Flushing, Queens, shot
and critically injured a man as he drove off after robbing her store
yesterday, the police said.

The man, Jose Colon, and two other men walked into Digital 2000
Communication at 60-04 Kissena Boulevard at 4:45 p.m., forced the
owner to the back of the store, threw her to the floor and tried to tape
her hands and mouth, said Detective Joseph Pentangelo, a police
spokesman. He said that a witness told the police that one of the men hit
the woman on the head with a cellular phone, and that it was unclear if
the men were armed.

One of the men took a black bag containing $20,000, while another stole
several cell phones and other appliances, and all three ran out and
jumped in a maroon Plymouth van, Detective Pentangelo said.

He said that the woman ran after them and as the van drove off, fired two
shots from a pistol, one of which struck Mr. Colon in the head.

The police found the van half a mile away, at Rose Avenue and Bowne
Street, with Mr. Colon in the driver's seat, bleeding profusely, Detective
Pentangelo said. The money bag, with $17,171 of the $20,000 inside,
was recovered, he added.

The police were searching for the other men.

Mr. Colon, 37, of Corona, Queens, was in critical condition last night at
New York Hospital Medical Center of Queens. He is charged with
robbery and possession of stolen property, Detective Pentangelo said.

A spokeswoman for the Queens district attorney's office said that a
decision had not been made whether to charge the 27-year-old store
owner. The spokeswoman, Mary DeBourbon, said that prosecutors
were trying to confirm the woman's claim that the gun, a Glock
9-millimeter, is licensed. Under New York State law, a civilian may use
deadly physical force to stop someone from fleeing after committing a
robbery.

The store owner was treated at St. Joseph's Hospital for stress and a
head bruise, the police said.

The owner of a computer store a few doors away from Digital 2000 on
the busy commercial strip near Queens College described the woman as
the kind of person who would bring back an extra cup of coffee for a
neighbor if she went to Dunkin' Donuts.

"She's a very decent, very friendly person," said Mamun Ahmed, the
owner of the Computer Care Center, adding that he knew the woman
only as Lily. "You can't imagine a person like that being brave enough to
strike back," he said.

Some pretty good shooting there!
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Under New York State law, a civilian may use deadly physical force to stop someone from fleeing after committing a robbery.[/quote]

Really?? That seems surprising.. I would have thought that gun-shy NY would only allow deadly force for imminent threat of life, not just loss of property...

-R
 
That's why I love living in Texas, if someone is in your house, and they attack you, and you shoot em' dead, the only problem you may have is how to get the bloodstains out of your carpet. The only catch to that law is they have to be INSIDE your house. And when they say inside your house, they mean inside, like if you shoot him he better not fall out a window or back out the door, or your screwed.

------------------
"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, becuse the whole body of the people are armed"
Noah Webster

Second Amendment lover? www.2ndamdlvr.homestead.com/home.html
 
Myth of being inside the house...

I don't know where this started, but I have heard it all my life and it really isn't accurate. There are the night laws, of which Saustrup's attorney (another thread) was going to use. On your property, at night, a person can use deadly force to prevent damage to home, person, or property (I am unclear if this is home property only or not). A person vandalizing your car in your driveway at night is risking their life because the night laws allow for the use of deadly force to stop such activities...even though the legal hassles to you for such a petty item may be ongoing. Here, the law covers the homeowner just as if he were being robbed at gunpoint. An intruder in your home, especially if they have forced their way in, but maybe still hasn't attacked you has given up their rights to life as well. Someone who has the ability, opportunity, and intent to do you serious harm may also suffer your deadly force and that force be justified, whether they are inside your house or not. The issue has nothing to do with the geographic location of where you shoot the person, meaning it may not be critical to shoot them in your house and that they die there. If you shoot them in your house during a crime, regardless of where they drop, you should be fine in the long run. Contrary to Texas myth, if bad guy falls outside the window, don't drag them back in! That is tampering with a crime scene.

[This message has been edited by Gopher .45 (edited May 24, 2000).]
 
ChrisMkIV, I disagree with your interpretation of the Texas penal code regarding the use of deadly force.

"The only catch to that law is they have to be INSIDE your house."

Not true. We can use deadly force on our front lawn, the street, the grocery store or in a mall. The statute basically says, if the actor resonably belives their life or limb is in immediate danger...bla bla bla."

No retreat, no warnings, no restrictions on the location of the use of deadly force.

THAT'S one of the reasons I love this state. In Texas, if you're attacked or reasonably believe you're about to be - the perp is meat.

CMOS

------------------
NRA? Good. Now joing the GOA!

[This message has been edited by CMOS (edited May 24, 2000).]
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gopher .45:
On your property, at night, a person can use deadly force to prevent damage to home, person, or property (I am unclear if this is home property only or not). [/quote]

So the shooting hours are from dusk til dawn? You can shoot someone at 11:00 pm and be legally justified, but with the exact same circumstances at 11:00am not justified?

Eric


------------------
Formerly Puddle Pirate.
Teach a kid to shoot.
It annoys the antis.
 
Eric, Texas law reads:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.[/quote]

Do not drag a dead or dying critter into your house. You cannot get rid of the evidence concerning where the critter was shot, and you cannot get rid of the dragging evidence. Which is going to cause the investigating officers to wonder mightily about the legality of the shoot.

Plus, you will be tampering with a crime scene and altering evidence--both of which are Bad Mojo.

LawDog

[This message has been edited by LawDog (edited May 24, 2000).]
 
Chris, there is no 'catch' about where the critter has to be. Texas Law Reads:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.3 1;

(2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and

(3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor. (This provision guarantees that there is no duty to retreat from your own house in Texas--LawDog)

§9.33. Defense of third person.

A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if.

(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and

(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person. [/quote]

Notice that a geographical location is not mentioned. The only requirement that has to be met in Texas to protect yourself is that you reasonably believed that your life was in danger.

LawDog
 
Back
Top