digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

Diner Owner Guns Down a Robber and His Accomplice

nbc10.com — If you want something done right, do it yourself. While narrowly dodging a bullet, Jason Lee, owner a diner in Philly, pulled out his gun and wasted two robbers as his wife was opening the cash register. He's been robbed before at other store locations and he's wasted them, too.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • merdiesel, on 10/12/2007, -5/+54Jason Lee?
    • Emanji, on 10/12/2007, -9/+99"One of the robbers fired at Lee, but missed. Lee shot Toombs in the head and pumped two bullets into Williams -- one in the face and another in the back, according to police."

      Damn, that ***** with that guy. He obviously know how to use a gun. In a gun class they taught you to use your gun as the last resort, but when you decide to use it you have to shoot to kill.
    • snakesonasam, on 10/12/2007, -315/+8just a quick question-
      can this guy me charged with manslaughter, the violence used seems unnecessary
    • timdorr, on 10/12/2007, -3/+159Depends on local laws, but considering the guy was stopping a forceful felony, he probably won't be charged with anything. He was shot at, so it's self defense.
    • noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -4/+190If the police are authorised to shoot when shot at... I don't have any qualms with the average Joe (who isn't wearing a bullet-proof vest) who does the same.
    • CrimsonBlur, on 10/12/2007, -1/+179@snakesonasam
      Are you serious or are you joking? I really can't tell. He was shot at! The only reason he was alive to retaliate is because the robber had crappy aim and missed. You bet your ass you have the authority to kill someone that just shot at you!
    • bLanKer, on 10/12/2007, -78/+7lulz koreans just pwn face, literally.
    • raynar, on 10/12/2007, -19/+33"Depends on local laws, but considering the guy was stopping a forceful felony, he probably won't be charged with anything. He was shot at, so it's self defense."

      Well, he also shot one in the back too. In Florida, at least in a home robbery, shooting when the robber is trying to leave is considered excessive and you can get charged.
    • wicketr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+76It doesn't matter who shot first. His, his wife's, and co-workers' lives were threatened with a deadly weapon and he has a right to protect himself with a deadly weapon. The same with the police. They can't use deadly force until their lives are threatened. If a guy has a gun and isn't pointing it at anyone they can't shoot him, but as soon as the guy starts looking to aim, the police can take him out.
    • aspec, on 10/12/2007, -18/+88Yeah, but that's florida... black hole of intelligence
    • JustinPM, on 10/12/2007, -1/+64No one will be robbing that store any time soon.

      They should put "Now with more lead!" on the front of the shop.
    • jus1haz2, on 10/12/2007, -8/+162Thats so awesome that he shot them, less ***** morons wasting my tax dollars in prison w00t!
    • humperdeath, on 10/12/2007, -18/+8I saw that movie, "A History of Violence", loved it!
    • Dundasbro, on 10/12/2007, -19/+3Dude I wonder if he went matrix on them?
    • Pile, on 10/12/2007, -35/+4shooting someone in the back is not a good thing... in most states it's illegal to shoot a fleeing felon.

    • devilspy, on 10/12/2007, -36/+6It's great that they got what they deserve! BUT
      Can't load the video..Looked at the slideshow it looked like he shot him went back inside, came back out and finished him off. WATCH slide 6 through 34 http://www.nbc10.com/slideshow/news/11200731/detail.html?qs=;s=1;p=/news/;dm=ss;w=400#
      So I checked video comments
      Jen
      (March 8, 2007 12:33 PM)

      Yup, store owners deserve protection and have a right to defend themselves and clientel, Unfortunately, this store owner was not a good shot right away, he (the store owner) will under go protests, cause it's clearly a black guy he shot. What he did do wrong was to go back inside and then return to finish him off. NOW that's contimplated murder.Regardless that the robber brought it on himself. Thats why my dad made sure all his kids were expert marksman, he was a retired cop.If you pull a gun ya better darn well shoot and if you shoot, shoot to kill.
    • Snokage, on 10/12/2007, -1/+30@ devilspy

      look closer... he didnt finsh anyone off.

      it looks more like hes keeping the dude he shot TWICE from running off.
    • centerblack, on 10/12/2007, -12/+3Ah, from the story you can see that he has a History of Violence.

      Yea... I'm Joey....
    • sjm20k, on 10/12/2007, -37/+8Did any of you look at the pictures? The ***** robber was already outside of the store - he shot him and he went down, when he tried to stand back up and run the store owner came back, threw him on the ground, held him down and shot him in the head. Thats not self defense.
    • devilspy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@ snokage
      It's hard to tell off a cell phone camera, I mean there is also a cop car right behind him. I hope he didn't come back and finish him off as there would be charges in that case. The owner should be vindicated of all charges. It just seemed like a possibility... the comment was from the video section on which I assume the person got to see the video.
    • rshu4you, on 10/12/2007, -16/+2He should be doing time. Anyone remember Geotz(sp)?
      He shot him in the back after chasing him out.
    • captaineuphoria, on 10/12/2007, -9/+12@snakesonasam
      Live by the gun, die by the gun.
    • ubuwalker31, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22@raynar
      You can shoot at a felon who is fleeing, and who is armed and dangerous and poses an immediate danger to others. If the felon surrenders, puts his gun on the ground, and you shoot him in the head, then thats murder. And by the way, the surviving robber could be charged with the felony murder of his accomplice!
    • jabberwonk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+35This is actually about 2 miles from my house - we saw all the hovering helicopters that morning on the way to work.

      Lee has been robbed at least 2 other times at his dinner, and said that when these two robbed him he was afraid for his and his family's life, so he grabbed his gun and fired. He killed the one behind the counter that was closest to him. The other robber opened fire on him and he shot him in the face. That one then ran out the door and collapsed. Lee followed and the wounded robber attempted to get up and flee. Lee grabbed him and tacked him back to the grown and held him at gunpoint until police arrived. This is the video segment that someone captured with a cell phone.

      This area (West Oak Lane, East Mount Airy) has been seeing an increase in violent crime in the last few years. Some speculate that it's because formerly low income areas of center city (Brewerytown, Northern Liberties) have become very expensive, trendy areas of town ($350k - $500k for small townhouses at minimum), the families (and criminals) that used to live there are forced into less expensive areas of the city - such as East Mount Airy, lower Northeast Philadelphia etc.
    • centerblack, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4No look at the pictures... when he comes back out, he doesn't shoot the guy, he just grabs him and forces him back down on the ground, you can see where he grabs his wrist/shoulderblade and pushes him down and then stands on him w/ his foot gladiator style and poses for a picture.

      At least that's how it looks to me.
    • wtfmx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+57wiketr: "It doesn't matter who shot first."

      HAN SHOT FIRST
    • pwill, on 10/12/2007, -23/+20Retards: The man that shot a gun at the owner is dead. That is called self defense.
      The other man that was chased out of the store is NOT dead. How could he be charged with murder?
      Also, if the first guy had a gun, you don't just assume that the other dude doesn't have one.

      Anyway, these robbers got what they had coming. As Jesus said, "Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword."

      Too bad so many "Christians" don't actually follow that...
    • sideshowjohn, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2quick! make a movie about him
    • fkr3, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11What kind of crap gun doesn't kill a guy when you shoot him in the face???
    • KingErroneous, on 10/12/2007, -3/+53"What kind of crap gun doesn't kill a guy when you shoot him in the face???"

      The one Cheney used apparently.
    • lewscroo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6If you decide to shoot at someone, you better be shooting to kill if both parties are armed, whether you are the robber or the robbee. You don't want to end up in that stupid movie cliche situation where you think the guy is dead or severely disabled, only to shoot you as you walk away.
    • Asianwaste, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20Little brief tutorial on deadly force.
      In order for a police officer to discharge a firearm, 3 preconditions must be met.
      1. Opportunity: Meaning the person is in the immediate area he intends to threat.
      2. Capability: The person has the means to cause harm, such as holding a weapon.
      3. Intent: The person has made clear that he is going to do some serious bodily harm, something as simple as saying, "I'll kill you" will suffice.

      Now given this is the 3 commandments the gods of Police have passed down to cops, but this is almost instinctual for any sane responsible person with a firearm. I'd say if it works for the po-po, it'll work for a diner-owner.
    • Hoogie7Dowser, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3Koreans are the Asian equivalent of Italians.... You don't fcuk with people that come from a peninsula with a history of bloodshed.
    • Asianwaste, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@sideshowjohn

      It MUST be directed by Johnwoo, starrting Chow Yun Fat and must contain a 60 minute action sequence where wave after wave of armed goons siege the diner but only to be thwarted by the diner's manager and two pistols with a seemingly unlimited clip of ammo. No henchman can die without having at least 3 bullets in them and the movie must use at least a million packs of squibs and blank rounds.
      Oh yea, the whole plot will be all about 1 bad bowl of fried rice. This movie doesn't even exist, and I'm stoked!
    • tkotam, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Jason Lee? No way!! It has got to be Jason SCOTT Lee.. :-)
    • Berkana, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10@iamcitizen:

      Your quoting Jesus is contrary to the way Jesus used it. Jesus rebuked Peter by saying something to the effect of "all who draw the sword will die by the sword" right after Peter cut off the Roman guard's servant's ear in a feeble attempt to defend Jesus as Judas brought the Sanhedrin and the Romans to arrest him. Jesus was telling them not to retaliate with violence in his defense.

      I'm not saying that you shouldn't defend yourself; what I'm saying is that you're quoting Jesus out of context. His use of the quote was not to encourage violent defense of him, but to discourage it.
    • magic6435, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5@snakesonasam

      Its not self defense when the 2nd shot is in the back!
    • pwill, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@Berkana
      I think you misinterpreted what I said...
      I know why Jesus said it., and I understand it fully.
      The robbers lived by the gun, and they died from it.
    • FoxifiedNutjob, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2""Jesus rebuked Peter by saying something to the effect of "all who draw the sword will die by the sword" right after Peter cut off the Roman guard's servant's ear in a feeble attempt to defend Jesus as Judas brought the Sanhedrin and the Romans to arrest him. Jesus was telling them not to retaliate with violence in his defense.""
      -----------------------------------------

      Jesus is a myth. There is more proof of the existance of the Tooth Fairy than the mythical Jesus.

      http://www.jesusneverexisted.com
    • hater, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@fox:

      "Jesus is a myth. There is more proof of the existance of the Tooth Fairy than the mythical Jesus."

      Actually, there is currently zero proof of the existence of a Tooth Fairy, or any Fairy for that matter, while there are a number of historical texts that establish the existence of Jesus as a historical figure who lived and walked the earth.

      The concept of Jesus as the son of God is a debatable point, but the concept of Jesus as a mythical invention is not.

      Once again fox, you prove yourself to be intellectually incompetent.
    • Asianwaste, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2You're an idiot. There IS secular proof from the Roman archives that a man from Nazareth named Jesus did indeed exist. It was also documented that he was was crucified for attempting to usurper the Roman rule. Whether or not he came back to life 3 days later is up to debate.
      Now go do your tooth fairy research.
  • psycobrat, on 10/12/2007, -6/+192good man.

    saves allot of tax payer monies while stopping the jerks from commiting more crimes.
    • REBOP, on 10/12/2007, -64/+11allot?
    • firekrakcer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23REBOP
      al·lot –verb (used with object), -lot·ted, -lot·ting.
      1. to divide or distribute by share or portion; distribute or parcel out; apportion: to allot the available farmland among the settlers.
      2. to appropriate for a special purpose: to allot money for a park.
      3. to assign as a portion; set apart; dedicate.

      I think he meant a lot. Although it does save the government from the trouble of assigning money to the correction of this person so it could go either way.
    • BigBaRay, on 10/12/2007, -19/+6REBOP

      Like it really matters. you self appointed elitist prick.
    • bobcrotch, on 10/12/2007, -10/+97This is a prime reason why our guns shouldn't be taken away


      America ***** YEAH!!!!
    • oddmanout, on 10/12/2007, -36/+15"This is a prime reason why our guns shouldn't be taken away"

      he was shot at first, so if there were no guns involved, then we'd have one less fatality, one less person in the hospital using up taxpayers money to get better. Its also less likely he'd have walked in and tried to rob the place with a knife.

      If you look at places like Japan and England who have outlawed (or restricted) guns, they aren't rampant on the streets and murder rates are much much lower.

      the following values are: Country, Year, Population, Total Homicide, Firearm Homicide, Non-Gun Homicide, % Households With Guns

      United States 1999 272,691,000 5.70 3.72 1.98 39.0
      England/Wales 1997 51,429,000 1.41 0.11 1.30 4.7
      Japan 1994 124,069,000 0.62 0.02 0.60 n/a


      can you imagine living in an area with only a .62% homicide rate as compared to our 5.7%??
    • drlha, on 10/12/2007, -3/+39Time to get in my time machine and move to England circa 1997 then, because I can tell you, gun related crime in England is way higher in 2007.
    • oddmanout, on 10/12/2007, -19/+3yea, i couldn't find any more recent stuff.... but the laws were the same about guns in all 3 countries... so don't go quoting me on any essay for your political science class, but it proves a point in a forum. (which in the grand scale of things means absolutely nothing after i get bored with this thread and move on, especially since the gun nuts are digging me down... damn my bleeding heart)
    • hukedonfonix, on 10/12/2007, -3/+31@ oddmanout

      The exponential jump in violent crime all over England once guns were banned has been ridiculous, you're going to tell me that has nothing to do with the ban? I'll take my chances with having a gun pulled on me thank you very much, i really don't fancy getting my head clobbered with a baseball bat just because i didn't have any reasonable way of defending myself.

      Simple fact is that the uncertainty of a citizen packing heat is a very efficient way of dettering crime.
    • drlha, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20I'm sorry, the laws are about the same in all 3 countries you say? Have you any idea how restricted gun ownership is in the UK? Its illegal to own firearms if you're an average citizen basically. The restricitons on gun ownership in the UK are so strong that even sportsmen (I'm not talking hunters, but people like professional marksmen) have difficulty getting a permit for their guns, and yet gun crime is going up in the UK.
    • Millenium, on 10/12/2007, -6/+57If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns.
    • oddmanout, on 10/12/2007, -21/+9going up, maybe, but still lower than here.

      I guess i feel this way from growing up in a bad area, a lot of people had guns... most of these guns came from walmart and were legal.

      as for my personal feelings, I really only feel we should outlaw handguns. They aren't used for hunting, they can't easily be concealed. A few years ago, they legalized automatic weapons and things like grenade launchers... wtf are you going to do with a grenade launcher thats not illegal... and don't say "shoot it for fun" b/c thats hardly a valid reason to put a grenade launcher into the hands of a civilian. And an assault rifle? what are you going to hunt with that? Wild Oklahoman Elephants?

      Yes i do think we need to do something to get the guns off the streets - guns aren't the only problem, though... but reducing the amount of handguns should be step 1.
    • oddmanout, on 10/12/2007, -21/+8"If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns."

      - what do you think most unregistered illegal guns are? they are guns that started off legal and were stolen or sold illegally.
    • MaynardJK, on 10/12/2007, -6/+31"And an assault rifle? what are you going to hunt with that? Wild Oklahoman Elephants?"

      That statement right there shows that you don't know ***** about guns. My 7 mag or 30-06 will put a MUCH bigger hole in anything than most assault rifles, and both of them are legal. Assault rifles use the same ammo as other semi-automatic rifles. You are just like the rest of the anti-gun idiots that wants them banned because they look scary.
    • hukedonfonix, on 10/12/2007, -5/+34Another little tidbit, "assault weapon" is nothing more but another term for a "scary looking gun" coined by politicians to push their own agenda.

      Here's exactly what constitutes an "assault weapon":

      * ability to accept a detachable magazine (imagine that, a rifle accepting ammunition)
      * Folding or telescoping stock (oh ***** you can fold the gun in half?! EVIL!)
      * Conspicuous pistol grip (so if i hold the rifle any other way, the bullet fired is any way less lethal?)
      * Bayonet mount (drive-by bayoneting used to really be a problem back in the day)
      * Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one (cause you know..flash suppressor = more damage)
      * Grenade launcher (fine...maybe..)

      Besides the grenade launcher, everything else is purely cosmetic. And why do you need a grenade launcher? Simple, people like ***** that goes boom. There are ranges for that, you go and blow ***** up, release some stress.

      Why do you need a better car? That ***** you drive everyday gets you from point A to point B. Why do you need a better computer? The old one is perfectly capable of web browsing and word processing. Firearms are just like any other hobby, after awhile you want something bigger, badder and better. The point that these rifles end up on the street is moot, how many gang bangers do you see with an AR15 flung over their shoulders strolling through the hood?
    • Loonacy, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6If you gun outlaws, then only guns will have outlaws. Or something like that.
    • cawpin, on 10/12/2007, -5/+23@oddmanout - Dude, stop with the FUD. You have no idea what you are talking about. Grenade launchers were never illegal to begin with. They require a destructive device license from the BATFE just like fully automatic firearms. Handguns are used for hunting; how you thought otherwise is beyond me. You say that a lot of the guns "[came from] Walmart". If the people that bought them had been convicted of a felony, they bought them illegally by lying on the transaction forms.

      "what do you think most unregistered illegal guns are? they are guns that started off legal and were stolen or sold illegally."

      So I should be punished for someone else's crime? Right, nice try.
    • EvolvedFromApes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Handguns are important, especially large caliber ones. I wouldn't want to tangle with a wildcat or a bear while armed with a 9mm. I do trust my .44mag to give me a fair chance of survival. I can't carry a .30-30 carbine everywhere with me in the woods as it doesn't fit into my holster.
    • godofgodlygods, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3@bobcrutch

      You're a dumbass. If our guns were taken away HE WOULDN'T HAVE HAD ONE IN HIS FACE IN THE FIRST PLACE TO END UP KILLING A MAN.

      I don't necessarily think that guns should be banned, but your logic is completely stupid.
    • nolaMatt, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1@hukedonfonix
      "The point that these rifles end up on the street is moot, how many gang bangers do you see with an AR15 flung over their shoulders strolling through the hood?"

      You've obviously never spent much time in New Orleans.
      I submit for your perusal:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCbtXYC0pIY
    • Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9"You're a dumbass. If our guns were taken away HE WOULDN'T HAVE HAD ONE IN HIS FACE IN THE FIRST PLACE TO END UP KILLING A MAN."

      By what means would the guns of criminals be confiscated?
    • joeydoo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Bash the UK's anti gun thing all you want. But from personal experience....
      - I have never had a gun pointed at me
      - I haven't been in a shop where some one has pulled a gun.... And I worked for years in the nightshift for a 24 hour garage.
      - My friends/family have never seen a gun pulled on anyone or in a shop
      - The petrol station I used to work in would have been robbed while I was there if I hadn't locked the door...... they couldn't get in. If they had guns (which they would have if they thought I might have one!!), they WOULD have got in.
      - My dad goes hunting so has a few shotguns. The rules and laws for ownership are there so that they are properly secured..... nothing wrong with that. Same applies for rifles.
      - Our local paper very rarely has a story which has gun crime in.
      - Throughout my everyday life I haven't even seen a hand gun.
      So why the hell do I need a gun?
      • milliamp, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1If not for armed citizens the Revolutionary War would not have been possible.
    • Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6"Bash the UK's anti gun thing all you want. But from personal experience....
      - I have never had a gun pointed at me"

      Nor have I.


      "- I haven't been in a shop where some one has pulled a gun.... And I worked for years in the nightshift for a 24 hour garage."

      I worked nightshift for a few years in a 24 hour grocery store. I've never had a gun pulled on me in any shops either.


      "- My friends/family have never seen a gun pulled on anyone or in a shop"

      I don't believe that any of mine have either.


      "- The petrol station I used to work in would have been robbed while I was there if I hadn't locked the door...... they couldn't get in. If they had guns (which they would have if they thought I might have one!!), they WOULD have got in."

      So you did have unarmed robbers? So did the grocery store where I worked. But I don't think that a gun would have gotten them past the doors had they been locked.


      "- My dad goes hunting so has a few shotguns. The rules and laws for ownership are there so that they are properly secured..... nothing wrong with that. Same applies for rifles."

      You mean your father knows the right contacts in the government so he can be one of the "privledged"?


      "- Our local paper very rarely has a story which has gun crime in."

      I live in a fairly large city, but I don't have the stats on that. Nonetheless, there are quite a few towns in the US -- even in states with unrestricted access to most firearms -- with low gun crime rates.


      "- Throughout my everyday life I haven't even seen a hand gun."

      I cannot say the same. I have seen guns carried by police, and I have seen handguns at the local shooting range and the two gun stores that I frequent. Also, I saw my ex's deceased father's revolver whilst cleaning out the house (it had been properly stored and secured). Oh, and I've seen my own.

      None of the handguns that I've seen have been involved in any violent crimes, however.


      "So why the hell do I need a gun?"

      Perhaps you don't. But 1) don't tell me that I'm not allowed to have one and 2) don't assume that just because you've thus far never been in a situation where you would need to use a firearm to defend yourself that you never will.
      • milliamp, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1I live in a rural county where the guns outnumber the people. There has not been a single murder or armed robbery that I have ever heard of. Tons of guns, hunters, and prior service military around these parts. Few criminals.
    • joeydoo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"You mean your father knows the right contacts in the government so he can be one of the "privledged"?"

      No he isn't one of the "privileged". Anyone can have a shot gun or a rifle here for sporting reasons (providing a background check doesn't reveal you as a nut). If you own a gun range or use them for things like films I think, think.....you can have handguns as well. Bond films and crap heaps of action films are shot in Britain..... though maybe they use modified ones.
      The laws makes sure you have a reason to have one and you competent at storing it, personal defence is stated as not a good enough reason. Hand guns are for shooting people....... I see no reason why I would need to do that.

      "So you did have unarmed robbers? So did the grocery store where I worked. But I don't think that a gun would have gotten them past the doors had they been locked."

      No they were armed with bats. They robbed the KFC down the road. If I they had guns the doors were glass. (The more secure metal security things weren't down). They could have shot me through the glass so they could have gotten me to open the door.

      "Perhaps you don't. But 1) don't tell me that I'm not allowed to have one and 2) don't assume that just because you've thus far never been in a situation where you would need to use a firearm to defend yourself that you never will."

      I wouldn't personally demand you not to have a gun. I would just wonder why you would want one. As as kid we had air rifles and I've been pigeon and rabbit shooting. I'm not some anti gun pussy. I just don't get this thing with Americans saying "it's in the constitution!!, I can have one, it's my right!" Firstly, what does it do for ya, getting your jollies off by shooting? I don't get that. And secondly, if you use them for defence, and everyone does, you get escalation and THEN it gets dangerous. People start ***** themselves and think they NEED them like they some how change the odds. They don't.
      Sure in this story the man came out of this well and he killed the robbers. Great.... but if the robber had been lucky this time..... then there's a family without a father. The robber shot first and it was simple luck that meant he came out alright.
      All using guns for defence does is raise the stakes, the victims get lucky sometimes and get to kill their attackers, but if the criminals get lucky, then you die.... instead of just losing some well insured money.
      One day in my life I might be unlucky, but, hopefully who ever comes at me won't be as jumpy and I'll just get a smack in the face.... rather than shot. Hell I'll be much more willing to smack them back if there is less of a chance I will get shot in the face.
      It's much simplier to just do away with them. Our police still have them, they might need them... but I don't.
  • merdiesel, on 10/12/2007, -31/+2monies?..
  • Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -19/+172Another sensless gun death. If people weren't legally allowed to own guns, then more criminals like this wouldn't have to fear for their lives when committing violent crimes.

    Isn't that what the anti-gun groups want?
    • RawShark, on 10/12/2007, -8/+102These two deaths will likely end up in the statistics used by gun grabbers to show that Philly and PA need stricter gun laws.

      Some how, they will twist these raw numbers of a legitimate self-defense shooting into a call for 1 gun-a-month purchase limits.
    • Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -6/+60"Some how, they will twist these raw numbers of a legitimate self-defense shooting into a call for 1 gun-a-month purchase limits."

      Don't forget the ban on "assault weapons". Clearly this shooting proves that we need to remove dangerous "assault weapons" -- weapons like the AR-15, the M1 Carbine an the M1 Garand -- from our streets, where criminals carry them openly every day. Right down Main Street and in front of City Hall.
    • RuffRidr, on 10/12/2007, -11/+100And one of the robbers was 20. That will be classified as a child being killed by a gun.
    • libertao, on 10/12/2007, -33/+7This is just a fortunate case where the good guy was a better shot than the bad guy. *Much* better since the robber had the advantage of surprise.

      And just out of curiosity, do the people here cheering support changing the legal punishment for armed robbery to the death penalty?
    • bassfanatik, on 10/12/2007, -5/+44That kid deserved what he got..It was not senseless...If someone threatened you with a gun, are you going to stand there and smile, or be the one to shoot first?
    • noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -6/+109Nope, if guns were illegal you'd have a dead deli owner and two free scumbag killers.
    • Lockean, on 10/12/2007, -4/+35Having been robbed, twice, absolutely. Reckless disregard for the property of others is heinous enough, but for the safety of others is simply unacceptable. Why shouldn't someone be able to use the same amount of force threatened against them to defend themselves?
    • Protonz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+37libertao: "And just out of curiosity, do the people here cheering support changing the legal punishment for armed robbery to the death penalty?"

      There is a difference between sentencing in court for armed robbery, and self hyphen defense where your life is in direct danger.
    • BigBaRay, on 10/12/2007, -0/+28@libertao

      ""do the people here cheering support changing the legal punishment for armed robbery to the death penalty""

      Not exactly but if you draw down on somone and you get killed it is justified. Might not be justice but justified. The old phrase "better you than me".

      ANd if the story is true "The men demanded cash and threatened to open fire during the attempted robbery" if the not only brandished they threatened to use them. Phuck em feed em fishheads.
    • habnab, on 10/12/2007, -3/+42"Another sensless gun death. If people weren't legally allowed to own guns..."

      Then only the criminals would have guns, just ask the citizens of Australia what happened when their gun ban went into effect. I have many guns including an AK47 assault rifle. I also live in Florida where, thank God, we have the "Stand your ground law".

      Sounds to me that not only was Mr. Lee a fine shot but he should be commended for garbage removal.
    • biggbrother, on 10/12/2007, -1/+48He didn't get killed because of the robbery. He got killed because he was holding a gun in front of other people threatening to kill them.
    • brokekneck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20@ libertao

      Nope, just robbing a dinner with a gun, then taking a shot at the owner and trying to kill him.
    • wicketr, on 10/12/2007, -25/+2What happens when someone comes in the store with a battle ax and the other guy with a sword? Criminals will always try to overpower their victims by use of weapons. "Gun Control" won't help that.

      What the ought to do though is tax the hell out of guns to where if you want a gun you have to pay about $5000 for a dinky pistol and $10,000 for a semi-auto rifle. People should have the right to bare arms, but the government can at least make it financially hard to obtain one as well as passing the required background checks.
    • SweetMercury, on 10/12/2007, -1/+34"Another sensless gun death. If people weren't legally allowed to own guns, then more criminals like this wouldn't have to fear for their lives when committing violent crimes.

      Isn't that what the anti-gun groups want?"

      Of COURSE!

      Making guns illegal makes guns go away! Laws apparently work like magic.
    • Ibanezfoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13@30trip

      You don't have to take a 5 hour class to get a drivers license... where do you live? I just walked into the DMV and filled out a quick test, drove around the block once, and went home with my license. I've bought enough firearms to supply a small army, and the process is about the same, with the exception that I don't get to take my firearm home with me... I have to come back in a couple weeks to pick it up.
    • biggbrother, on 10/12/2007, -24/+4I don't favor a ban on firearms. However, to anyone who says "Only criminals would have guns" I say who cares? That shows you understand basic definitions, but what does that have to do with the debate?

      Yes, there will always be criminals. I can guarantee there would be fewer criminals. Make it harder to get a gun, fewer people will have guns. Supply and demand.

      Yes, people can use alternatives. They can use those alternatives now, so obviously there must be something special about using a gun.

      With arguments like that in favor of gun ownership, it's just a matter of time before all guns are banned. Anyone trying to make a decision about the issue who hears those arguments will quickly support a complete ban on guns. You had better get to work making a better case.
    • Ibanezfoo, on 10/12/2007, -10/+18@wicketr

      I think we should tax the hell out of people who think taxes are the solution to everything. So who gets the money? How about a $6000 tax on hammers? You know how many peoples' heads I could smash open with a single run-o-the-mill claw hammer?

      Taxes are illegal, period.
    • cawpin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11@biggbrother - I pronounce you King of Circular Logic!
    • lewscroo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+72nd amendment aside, gun ownership should not be restricted. criminals obviously are not following the law when they break it, so one more law won't matter. having laws saying its illegal to use guns in a criminal act is the same as saying its illegal to own guns in the first place. either way, if you rob a store with a gun, its illegal. its why the death penalty isn't a real deterrent, as criminals aren't thinking much about the consequences, no matter how severe.

      2nd amendment not aside, the gov't cannot make laws restricting our right to bear arms. not just have them to show, but the right to have them on us. i really can't see how we've even gotten to the point where we have as many restrictions as we do on gun ownership. if the people and the gov't is serious about restricting gun ownership, then do as the 21st amendment did, and un-do an already existing amendment.

      and for the record, i own zero guns, unless you consider a paintball gun a real weapon
    • Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9"And just out of curiosity, do the people here cheering support changing the legal punishment for armed robbery to the death penalty?"

      I don't. Do you have another strawman about which you would like to ask?
    • mwolfzorn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@ibanezfoo "Taxes are illegal, period." ???

      "Section 8 - Powers of Congress

      The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

      Hmm nope, taxes look pretty legal to me since they are in the US Constitution...
    • Managore, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I'm from Australia, where we have anti gun laws, and I've never heard of armed robbery taking place anywhere near me, with one exception. Sure some people will still have guns, but not many, and the police are still armed. Gun control heavily reduces the number of deaths caused by gunfire, even if some of those deaths (but only a small fraction) are the robbers or those causing who are causing the crimes.
    • Managore, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Then only the criminals would have guns, just ask the citizens of Australia what happened when their gun ban went into effect"

      Almost no gun-related crime here. I assume you're referring to the one gun massacre we've had (Port Arthur massacre), so how many massacres has the US had?
    • SweetMercury, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@biggbrother:
      "Yes, there will always be criminals. I can guarantee there would be fewer criminals. Make it harder to get a gun, fewer people will have guns. Supply and demand."

      I would refer to my above comment. Making the guns illegal doesn't necessarily lessen the supply—look at the drug war for a model.

      Besides, your logic is ultimately flawed; supply adjusts itself to meet demand, not vice versa. Making something illegal does not affect demand in the slightest. If gun control does manage to restrict supply, and demand remains constant, then all the government will have done is to artifically inflate the price of guns, thus further empowering a criminal underground involved in illegal gun trade.

      Not to mention, the government will also be decreening that a large portion of its citizens are now criminals for exercising what the founders of this country believed to be an inalienable right.
  • novaculus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+65Instant Kharma
  • shifty2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+97*crosses off THAT store off list of stores to rob*
  • asauterChicago, on 10/12/2007, -9/+6Anyone have a link to the video? It doesn't seem to work on their site, at least for me (yes I'm using firefox).
  • rasterbator, on 10/12/2007, -2/+40- - loud applause - -
  • whoseroot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+46This isn't his first time either. Back on August 15, 1993, Jason Lee's family grocery store (aka bodega) was held up in the East Oak Lane neighborhood of Philadelphia, about 5 blocks from this shooting. Then, his wife was being held by the throat and he shot and killed one man and shot another in the leg and back.
    see: http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/16874467.htm

    I feel bad for his wife. She's the one caught up in his business ventures.
    • coredump0x01, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Yes there seems to be a lot of violent crimes going down in this area lately. Just 2 days ago an 18 year old was shot in the face over a basketball foul in the park down the street from me. http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=local&id=5114744 This city is getting worse and worse and if I'm still living here, you better believe the day I turn 21 I'm picking me up a Desert Eagle.
    • mille716, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Do you think Mr. Lee is exposing himself and his wife to anymore danger by going on TV and speaking about this? There is a (small) possibility these guys' friends might want to get him back.
    • ICSU, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5I don't think she will ever dare divorce.
    • ubuwalker31, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@coredump0x01
      You can buy that Desert Eagle at 18, but you can't carry it concealed until your 21 in PA, I think. Consult your local lawyer/gun shop. Your better off with a shotgun anyway.
    • Jagdwulfe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@coredump The desert eagle is not really that effective as a combat weapon. I would say spend the money on a springfield XD or HK USP in a .45.
    • vuke69, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@Jagdwulfe

      You are better off with the .40. You loose a little knock down power compared to the .45, but it is way better than the 9mm, plus you get an extra 4 rounds with the extended clip.
    • Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Eh, I like my .45. But it's an XD compact. I only get 10 in the mag total, and I even carry with less, but I have four spare 13-round mags.
    • coredump0x01, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I just like the way they look. Maybe the Eagle for home/car defense, or a .38 Special since they shoot so smooth. For the street, probably something more practical for personal defense like you say. Perhaps a Glock 9mm or similarly compact weapon. I'll see in 2 years :D Thanks all for the info.
    • 1111, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0where is charles bronson when you need him?
    • halik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Desert eagle is a HORRIBLE idea for self defense. The muzzle flash will blind you at nigth and the recoil will knock your teeth out... not to mentio that you'll accidentally shoot someone 3 walls away
    • acceptab1euname, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Does it really matter what kind of caliber bullet you use, provided you're capable of putting those bullets PRECISELY where you want them to go, while undergoing the stresses of a close-quarters gunfight? I'm with the other poster, too....KNOW YOUR TARGET AND WHAT'S BEYOND IT!!!!!!!!111
  • Rockout, on 10/12/2007, -5/+64Right before they were shot, one of the robbers referred to the other as "Honey Bunny". Odd...
    • tr0n, on 10/12/2007, -13/+7Nice Pulp Fiction reference. *thumbs up*
  • LonesomeFighter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21I tried to play the video. But i got a "video not found" message.
    Anyone get the video? did it get to youtube or google video before it 'disappeared'?
    • RatherDashing, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7yeah video not found.....wtf i wanted to see the aftermath :)
    • coredump0x01, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yea you'd think a video website would have videos...
  • Captbob007, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25Awesome! They got what was comin' to them. Wish it could happen more often.
  • tokyomonster, on 10/12/2007, -5/+24a history of violence anyone?

    (the movie/graphic novel)
    • cardyology, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9A history of violence is exactly what I thought untill I saw the picture of the guy.
      Viggo Mortensen he is not...
    • mrsmalkav, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1i was so going to post exactly that :)
  • goldfenix, on 10/12/2007, -6/+34A History of Violence anyone?

    Edit: Digg down. At the exact moment I posted this, tokyomonster above posted the same thing, nearly word for word. Creepy...
    • doctorcaligari, on 10/12/2007, -1/+27I think you are supposed to say what anyone would upon speaking the same sentence at the same time: JINX!

      God I'm old...
    • tokyomonster, on 10/12/2007, -12/+1uhh...wtf?
    • Xarou, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Oh man, looks like doctor is getting a Coke.
    • habnab, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@xarou:

      You read my mind... We always said, "You owe me a Coke" You a Southerner?
    • Xarou, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Nah, I'm not sure where I picked it up, but I always said that too. Like, JINX, you owe me a coke. Either that or JINX, you can't speak until your name is said. I live up in the middle of nowhere, PA.
  • bodger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+25Todays Special: Lead to go.
    • jackhole, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Seems to me they ended up dining in...
  • EvileSpawn, on 10/12/2007, -9/+7Welcome to Philadelphia ... I think we should change it from "city of brotherly love" to "piss us off and we'll shoot you in the face". If you live or work in here you'll understand how this is 10x more appropriate.
    • UnforgedNoobah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2rofl...

      I find that offensive but funny.

      Its really not the city of Brotherly love, and people are no more trigger happy here then anywhere else.

      I would call it the City of Corrupted Love...
    • krishenn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+23I live AND work in Philly - in what they call a "neighbourhood in transition" - my ass! It's the f#@ing ghetto! And it SUCKS! Bunch of kids living next door suffered from a "home invasion" a few months ago - dudes knocked on the door and then forced their way in and stole a bunch of stuff. Then a few weeks after that, this crackhead m#$@# f#$@# broke down the front door of the building next door and stole some stuff. Obviously he didn't get everything he came for because the next day he came back and realizing that the front door had been reinforced by the landlord, fashioned himself a battering ram from a piece of wood and was attempting to batter his way in when he was surprised by one of the renters coming home. He made his escape on a bicycle. Mind you, this was all in broad daylight. The pizza shop a block away got robbed at gunpoint at 4 in the afternoon. Then the other day I went out to walk the dog only to be accosted by this totally strung out looking girl (didn't look more than 15), pregnant as all heck, trying to sell me a MacBook!!! WTF!!!!

      And there's a police station a block away!! So I say again, WTF!! :-)

      Is this just Philly or is it like this everywhere? I've never lived in any other city.
    • brokekneck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@ krishenn

      That's a ***** deal. Its bad here. But I dont think its that bad.
    • BDiz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@ Krishenn
      That's pretty bad but here in the nations poorest city (cleveland for those not in the know), things aren't peachy either. Two blocks away from my campus (Cleveland State) are the Cedar projects, ive had a gun pointed at me just driving down the street, my best friend got shot in the leg going to community college (also by the PJs), the BP on the other side of campus still has 3 bulletholes (or ricochet marks) in the bulletproof glass....everytime you step on to the street, day or night, theres atleast 3 bums/heads that'll bug you nonstaop until you get to your destination. Having lived in Cleveland all my life, I'm fairly used to stories like that, but its the small-town kids that come here that end up missing....so for all you Philly dwellers...there are worse places to live ;)
    • Dunadan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5You do realize it's called the city of brotherly is because its the name, Philadelphia, which comes from the Greek word for brotherly love, phileos.
    • aukxsona, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@krishenn
      Dude things have gotten worse...I lived in Pa...never had those problems. I mean yeah it "happened" but like at 9 pm or maybe 7 pm earliest. No one was out during the day, so the normal residents had their lives during the day free from jerks..in by dark etc etc... they were pretty safe then.

      I guess things have changed in just 10 years.
  • huntrm, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9Point of this story? Get out of Philadelphia.......
    • habnab, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20Eh... How about don't commit armed robbery because you yourself may get shot! Sheesh!
  • bassfanatik, on 10/12/2007, -1/+37Count one robber down..he got exactly what he deserved, I have no sympathy for the guy.
    • KennMac, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3RTFA - There were two.
    • Awperator, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5RTFA yourself. 1 Dead (down), the other critically injured
    • KennMac, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2"down" means you've been hit, Dick-cheese. Take notice that an officer is still alive when he squelches his radio, "officer DOWN."
  • Dou6, on 10/12/2007, -4/+44Good on those stupid thiefs. Lee IS a hero IMO, because he has the balls to standup to criminals, and is the type of person everyone needs to be if our cities are to put any kind of dent in the rash of crime.

    I feel bad for the people that live in states like Mass, NJ, CA where someone shoots an intruder attempting to rape their wife, and because they didn't renew their gun permit, they end up doing 20 years in jail for murder.

    Luckily PA is still gun friendly, but I bet Philly is gonna cave eventually. As soon as these moron politicians are willing to give up their security detail, I am willing to give up my gun, but it ain't gonna happen. Out of touch hyprocrites is all it is in those states.

    I fled the anti northeast for Texas...I couldn't be happier.
    • RawShark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Right behind you. Making the NJ -> North TX transition in a couple of months here.

      Good riddance to bad rubbish.
    • aukxsona, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2CT is a flee state...if your husband is beating the PISS out of you and you hit back just one punch you go down for assault...just take the beating like a good wife...

      Not fcuking lying.

      CT sucks ASS. No rights.
  • tmessing, on 10/12/2007, -0/+32FTA "Authorities said Lee would not be charged because he was acting in self hyphen defense"

    I would call it a "self exclamation point defense"

    • Protonz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+43Someone was trying out Vista's voice recognition feature.
    • Mipmap, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4More like, self-MFing-defense
    • doobes, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0But unfortunately he will be sued by the perpetrator who survived.

  • dbre2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+35"Authorities said Lee would not be charged because he was acting in self hyphen defense."

    wtf?

    I mean

    wtf question mark
    • glitch47, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5

      Maybe they're fans of ATHF?

      Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film for Theaters
  • thefutureisours, on 10/12/2007, -25/+11how horrible. another example on why there should be gun control. without guns, they probably would have sat down, discussed their differences and come to a win-win solution. while i don't condone robbery, these two victims could have been rehabilitated to become working members of society.
    • bassfanatik, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23The got what they deserved. Criminals are going to get guns no matter what the "gun laws" are, its called a black market. So let's say there were gun laws, and the store owner did not have a gun, and the criminal still has one. If someone gets killed, wouldn't you rather see the bad guy go? If someone broke into your house and was armed, wouldn't you like to have a gun nearby? If someone pointed a gun on your face and said they were going to kill you, would you let them shoot first?
    • klawz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Perhaps thefutureisours is a "bad guy" himself, and sees the attempted murders dying as a bad thing. I for one, would KILL and send flowers, before I would allow anyone to kill me or my family, gun or no gun. Outlawing guns is not the answer, not by FAR. It's the same analogy as people who don't like the military. Imagine the country w/o any military, what language do you think we'd be speaking then?
    • d3c0yn4m3l355, on 10/12/2007, -13/+1If that would be true, then how come that in Europe where guns are restricted there are far less gun related crimes? It's the whole attitude that the US has regarding weapons, you should be capable to defend yourself against others. Sure but thanks to this idea everybody is actually capable to get a weapon. And guess what, the person who considers abusing a weapon is ahead of the self-defender (unless they meet Mr Lee). Eitherway criminals are way better of tnx to this regulation. Luckily over here in Europe its very hard to come by weapons, and if weapons are being used they are eitherway stolen weapons from the military or imported from eastern-Europe.
    • jpreynolds, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2moron!
    • Xarou, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8*Puts down gun and repeats to himself*

      I will not harm the troll, I will not harm the troll, I will not harm the troll
    • BigBaRay, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1OR shoot them in the face!!
    • deluca92, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10did you forget the /sarcasm?
    • habnab, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16@ thefutureisours:

      You're joking right!?!
      ================
      @ d3c0yn4m3l355:

      If they were beaten to death with a baseball bat you'd want baseball bats banned. You pacifists in Europe haven't a clue. My brother lives in The Netherlands and the best he says he can do to protect himself in case of home intrusion is leave or make the perp breakfast in the hopes that they won't break too much stuff during the robbery. Europe is a lost cause... That is until we Americans have to come over and save the day again.
    • coredump0x01, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Outlawing guns entirely just gives criminals an advantage, and it will criminalize those wanting to use guns to defend themselves against moron robbers like these. Obviously criminals don't care to respect the law, they're criminals after all.
    • thefutureisours, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9yeah i'm joking. it's sad that most people are taking me seriously because there are really people who espouse that kind of mind-set.

      i'm glad they were shot. when someone threatens your life, it's fair game, if you ask me.
    • implementor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4If you're serious, you have no concept of how the criminal mindset works. If there were no guns, they would have taken a baseball bat and bashed his head in, or knifed him in the gut. And Lee would have been much less likely to have been able to defend himself, so we'd likely be looking at a dead storeowner and his wife, instead of dead scumbag robbers who tried to kill the storeowner and his wife. Assholes like these robbers do not "sit down and talk out their differences" with anyone, they simply assault them and take what they want.
    • Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"If that would be true, then how come that in Europe where guns are restricted there are far less gun related crimes?"

      Cultural issues. Gun crime in European countries is generally lower than gun crime in the US regardless of firearms restrictions.


      " It's the whole attitude that the US has regarding weapons, you should be capable to defend yourself against others."

      Are you saying that this should not be recognized as a fundamental right? That individuals do not have a right to self-defense?


      "Sure but thanks to this idea everybody is actually capable to get a weapon."

      This is false. Felons are not able to obtain firearms. Individuals with mental illness are not able to obtain firearms.


      " And guess what, the person who considers abusing a weapon is ahead of the self-defender (unless they meet Mr Lee). Eitherway criminals are way better of tnx to this regulation."

      Criminals tend to ignore laws regarding weapons posession. This is likely because criminals are less likely to respect laws.


      " Luckily over here in Europe its very hard to come by weapons, and if weapons are being used they are eitherway stolen weapons from the military or imported from eastern-Europe."

      Crime in the UK increased after firearm controls were tightened. It would appear that gun control, at best, has no effect on crime rates.
    • Jagdwulfe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2They were better than rehabilitated. One was removed from the gene pool (hopefully he never got a chance to taint it) and the other will hopefully die soon enough.
    • aukxsona, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I hope that is sarcasm
  • whiterabbitobj, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2Is it just me, or does it look like he shoots the guy execution style while he's on the ground? I'm all for shooting criminals, but if that's the case, he might have some legal issues. :-/
    • Wonderkind, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I think he was preventing the wounded guy from getting away.
    • wicketr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4My defense would be that the guy turned his back to me, but still had the gun pointed in my direction (like shooting backwards under the opposite arm). Who's the jury going to believe? The deli owner or the robber?
    • BigBaRay, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I think in the heat of the moment, once the decision is made to use the gun, you dont pussy foot around. I know if i was gonna fire on a guy that I thought was going to hurt or kill me I might just pop off a few extra just to make sure. It might be the case if the wounded man ran out the store and was being tended to be medics when the shop owner capped him but I doubt that was the case.
    • BigBaRay, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Holy crap. I just got some of the pictures. Did the store owner pursue one of the robbers outside and shoot him while he was on the ground? Does the video show this????
      I might have to backtrack on some of my support for the diner owner...
  • fastEE, on 10/12/2007, -1/+44Mr. Lee and I support "Gun Control". Control your Gun to hit the target.
    • nam20485, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3No, its more commonly, "Gun control is using both hands"
  • AdmiralAwsome, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23God Bless America *starts humming star spangled banner*
    • ThinkBox, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Sorry, at first I thought you said "start humping star spangled banner"
  • xcoastie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+40This is exactly why I only rob/rape/kill in DC. I know I am safe as a criminal.

    /s
    • Daedalus17, on 10/12/2007, -0/+25Actually the ban got overturned in court this week. You might have to move if this holds.
    • BigBaRay, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19@xcoastie

      Teddy Kennedy????? is that you????
  • TheToecutter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21Well done, sir, well done.

    A world with fewer dirtbags is a better world.
  • saintdesy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21My favorite line from the article:

    "Authorities said Lee would not be charged because he was acting in self hyphen defense."

    How the hell does someone end up spelling out something like hyphen question mark
    • SteelChicken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6voice recognition software gone awry and poor editorial skills.
    • abyssknight, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Man, I'd hate to be killed in self hyphen defense. I mean, I'd settle for self space defense, at least that sounds cool for your tombstone.

      "Johnny was killed in self space defense."

      Seriously, "self hyphen defense" just makes you think of some idiot fighting punctuation to the death and then getting stabbed in the face with an apostrophe.
  • Newportbeachguy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17@snakesonasam
    "just a quick question-
    can this guy me charged with manslaughter, the violence used seems unnecessary"


    Holy *****, I don't even know where to start. Let that be you!

    You fkn Pussy
  • froz3ntear, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I like this guy seeing as how he's cleaning up the world of trash and all.
  • edebaby, on 10/12/2007, -2/+29He put the "die" in Diner
  • inarguable, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Looks like poor 20-year-old Cornell Toombs rapidly achieved the stark realization that payback can really be a bitch sometimes.

    That cellphone video kind of reminds me of the Korean shopkeepers getting some trigger time during the LA riots in 1992. http://youtube.com/watch?v=lUaoil0wsyU
    Starting right at the 10 second mark of this clip, you get to see a couple textbook examples of those Korean shopkeepers deciding to exercise their fundamental right to protect their property and defend their storefronts (utilizing extreme prejudice when doing so, I might add).
  • mattman59, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22I will buy this guy a beer if I ever see him. He saved all of us lots of money AND exercised his second amendment rights!

    This is not this incident but I sure do love.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZrdbSJVSVM
  • benwellington, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4You can't blame him for acting in "self hyphen defense" period
  • byronm, on 10/12/2007, -10/+16Ahem folks, this is where gun control *ACTUALLY WORKED*. The shop owner was carrying a "LEGAL" / "REGISTERED" gun and used it for self defense. Note, the persons who were robbing the place aren't being mentioned for legally owning the gun or not.

    So the LAW protects the shop owner because he LAWFULLY used his gun.

    There is a HUGE difference in gun control laws that PROTECT the gun owner vs those that are useless and this is case in point where the law worked.

    Personally, it will be an interesting day when a poor stoor owner on the brink of collapse shoots a black kid with a wad of money who was just buying a pack of smokes and clames he was being robbed (because he may have seen what appears to be a gun). Obviously this guy was shot at first and i'm happy he is the one to walk out alive but gun control isn't a black and white law, thats all i'm trying to say.

    We may as well get rid of alcohol, drug control, sex laws and many other "Vice" laws, but we're too proud of our guns to think otherwise.

    Gun control means a lot to those who are victims of gun violence so i respect there opinions. I own several guns and lawfully do so but gun law is one of those things thats sort of like abortion law - you cant make a sweeping decision/action but if your going to make laws, atleast make ones that protect those who abide it and in this case - IT WORKED! hoaahhh
    • h00paj00, on 10/12/2007, -4/+32No. It didn't work, because the robber had an illegal gun. That is the definition of Gun Control not working... Criminals still owning guns.

      Gun control prevents the law abiding from getting guns by making them jump through hoops to get one.
    • byronm, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2@hoopjahwhateverthehell you are.

      It did work, sorry you can't see the forrest from the trees but without gun law - what law would determine this mans right to self defense? ohhh thats right, the law enacted as an amendment that gives us the right to do so. I forget.. laws don't to anything good unless you can cherry pick them.

    • math20, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Rights are not granted to us by laws
    • mille716, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3Everyone needs to stop assuming "gun control" means all guns are to be taken away. Very few Americans are in favor of that. Most just want sensible "control" of the sale of guns. Yes, some criminals will still find a way to get guns illegally. However, if you make it so they can't just walk into any gun store and walk out with a gun, there is less of a chance they'll be armed.

      Say what you will about gun control but Clinton's gun control policy (nothing extreme) brought gun crime rates down significantly and law abiding citizens still got to defend themselves.
    • implementor, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Clinton's gun control laws did no such thing. During the same time period, many States passed concealed carry laws in defiance of Clinton's gun control laws, which have reduced crime more than any gun control law ever could. Did you factor that into your assessment? Clinton's gun control laws have been repealed, and guess what? Crime is still going down, even though we can now buy standard capacity magazines and military-pattern semiautomatic guns (the guns the Clinton Administration incorrectly called "assault weapons"). How does that factor into your "Clinton's gun control laws reduced crime" *****?
    • Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6"Say what you will about gun control but Clinton's gun control policy (nothing extreme) brought gun crime rates down significantly and law abiding citizens still got to defend themselves."

      Are you referring to the Brady Bill, which has had no discernable impact on crime rates, or the "Assault Weapons Ban", which had no discernable effect on crime rates, banned guns rarely used in crimes based solely upon cosmetic features and almost certainly cost the Democrats control of Congress for twelve years?
    • mille716, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2"During the same time period, many States passed concealed carry laws in defiance of Clinton's gun control laws, which have reduced crime more than any gun control law ever could. Did you factor that into your assessment?"

      You're just wrong. I happen to know what stats you're referring to. Its from a libertarian name John Lott and has been repeatedly disproven. Violent crime rate rose in 41% of the new states that passed the concealed carry laws as opposed to 18% of states that didn't.

      We can throw stats back at each other all day but just answer me this, are you seriously against someone with a violent criminal past or who has a restraining order against themselves being able to easily purchase a weapon without a background check?

      I'm not anti-gun. *****, I even went shooting for fun over Christmas break. Own a gun for all I care. Own 10. I just think its a good idea that the government make an effort to find out who owns the guns.
    • Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"Violent crime rate rose in 41% of the new states that passed the concealed carry laws as opposed to 18% of states that didn't."

      Do you have a reference for this statistic?
    • mille716, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/research/?page=lott_mglc&menu=pro
    • Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4My apologies for not being clear.

      I should have asked "do you have a reference for this statistic that comes from an organization not known to lie in order to support an anti-gun agenda".
    • implementor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I will agree that there are some problems with Lott's information, especially as concerns the Mary Roth issue. However, I was not referring to Lott's information, I was referring to the studies by Kleck and Mustard, who proved the same thing, and whose studies were independently peer-reviewed and shown to be accurate. Unlike the Brady study you've cited, which was bought and paid for by them, has had no peer review (as they know it would be proven to be factually incorrect, as the Kellerman study was), and is patently false. But nice try. I hope your chains don't rattle around too much when you type.
    • Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"However, I was not referring to Lott's information, I was referring to the studies by Kleck and Mustard, who proved the same thing, and whose studies were independently peer-reviewed and shown to be accurate."

      My understanding was that Kleck's research demonstrated that, at worst, allowing shall-issue CCW permits resulted in no discernable change in the crime rate.

      I do not know where the Brady Campaign obtained their statistics or how the statistics are compiled, but given their past acts of deception. Look at their claims in support of the "assault weapons ban" -- one anti-gun individual posting on the Wikipedia discussion page for the AWB expressed shock that the claim that pistol grips on rifles are used to facilitate "spray-firing from the hip" was not, as he originally believed, a bogus argument fabricated by gun nuts as a means of discrediting the Brady Campaign.

      I can also point out that one of the Violence Policy Center's arguments against CCW permits is a citation of an increase in arrest rates of CCW permit holder. For some reason they don't go by actual conviction records, even though not every arrest will result in a conviction, or even charges filed. They also don't mention that a shooter will be arrested -- as a standard procedure -- after a shooting even if the shooting was obviously justified. They have been observed using deceptive statistics to "prove" that allowing concealed carry increases crime. Given the track record of gun grabbing organizations, I don't feel it unwise to consider any statistics that they release to be suspect at best.
  • quacker912, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3I've been to that diner, the food is crap.
    • humperdeath, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I haven't been there, but even if the food aint so good, at least I think I'd be safe there. Maybe I'd try it out anyway.
  • Wonderkind, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20Poor fella. Just an unfortunate product of his environment...
    He NEEDS an illegal gun to earn make a living.
    And his youngster friend... poor child.

    Oh wait. Mr. Lee was also a product of the same environment!

    Dammit. Perhaps I'll have to rethink that whole anti-gun thing.

    BTW, excellent shot, Mr. Lee.
  • TheToecutter, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13I just looked at the still images (video not working). All I have to say is ***** AWESOME MAN!

    Maybe ***** criminals would second guess their profession if we (the citizens) started using brutal force more often. Steal my *****, you die. I live in a remote house in the country and the day anyone enters my home to steal my hard earned possessions they will die before they even have a chance to run or protest.
    • STKD, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3I'd rather stay somewhere where I know the value of life, thanks.
    • dellis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"Steal my *****, you die"

      You might want to rethink that. Our society (U.S.) places life above property, and in most jurisdictions you cannot kill people simply because they are taking your TV. TVs are replaceable, the robber's life (no matter how bad/pathetic/retarded) is not.

      The guy from the article was shot at, and correctly used the gun in self defense. His life was in danger, not just his property.
    • scooterk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0HELL Yeah, toecutter. I totally agree. ***** with me or my family or my stuff and you deserve what you get; shot and buried in a shallow grave. I don't even need a gun; I have a wood chipper. I'll feed what's left to my pigs.
  • STKD, on 10/12/2007, -19/+3Am I the only one right now thinking that just maybe there are better ways than "You attack me and thus your life is forfeit"?
    The fact we have people openly celebrating the taking of a life - any life - as if it were worthless, is sickening. Particularly shooting someone already fleeing, in the back.
    Sad, sad world you people have there.
    • h00paj00, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14These two guys were ***** on society who would have robbed your mother or grandmother given the opportunity.

      It's real easy for me to say that the world is a better place without these guys.
    • STKD, on 10/12/2007, -15/+3Having no desire to kill or harm anyone while I'm on this planet, whatever. I'd be fine with being the only one to be able to say that.
    • habnab, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Yea, until some scumbag beats the ***** out of your 101 year old grandmother. Or I guess you'd run and find a police officer to arrest the attacker leaving your gm to fend off the attack? Perhaps you could reason with him and make him see the error of his ways...

      sarcasm.

      Two taps to the head cures all manner of violent criminal acts.

      Bravo Mr. Lee!
    • coredump0x01, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7"Am I the only one right now thinking that just maybe there are better ways than "You attack me and thus your life is forfeit"?"

      Yes you are. Come live in Philly for a few years, that opinion will change very quickly.
    • STKD, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4I'd rather live somewhere where human life is actually still seen as valuable, thanks.
    • mdmadph, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7yeah, we do live in a place where life is valuable -- valuable enough to want to save if someone is trying to kill you. I know you're trying to be a pacifist because you think it represents higher morals, but I'm pretty sure that even Buddhists (noted pacifists) will defend themselves if someone is trying to kill them. it only makes sense.
    • canoe59, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4We are living in a country that expects it's citizens to sit back and wait for the police to come and protect us. The police just show up to clean up the mess. Why shouldn't people be allowed to defend themselves and their loved ones and their property? If a person is trying to violate someone elses rights by stealing or hurting them, then the one being violated has the right to defend themselves.

      Australia took the citizens guns away, now they are being torchured by criminals that know no one can defend them selves.
      I say force everyone to own, carry and know how to use for defence a gun. If you knew that everyone around you was carying a gun would you try to rob that old lady or rape that woman?

      AUTOMATICS AND UZU'S FOR EVERYONE!!
    • Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"Am I the only one right now thinking that just maybe there are better ways than "You attack me and thus your life is forfeit"?"

      No, I am sure that there are other cowards out there who believe that it is the duty of a victim to allow a violent criminal to harm or kill them.
    • STKD, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2So "not willing to end another person's life" now equates to "coward". Interesting.
    • Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"So "not willing to end another person's life" now equates to "coward". Interesting."

      No. Refusing to defend against an attacker equates to "coward". Denouncing an act of justified self-defense equates to coward.

      However, what really interests me is whether or not you believe that such an action should be legally defensible. Do you believe that Mr. Lee should suffer no legal consequences for his actions? Do you believe that the law should prohibit the use of deadly force in any situation, even self-defense?
  • deviationer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7the two ***** got exactly what they deserved.
  • glui2001, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3This story made my day! :)
  • h00paj00, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Mr. Lee. You are wrong. You ARE a hero!
    And it amazes me at how many people here are defending the robbers, or bitching about self defense. You all make me sick.
    • benijuana, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2deleted
    • STKD, on 10/12/2007, -18/+3"Defending" or "bitching about self-defense" isn't the issue. The issue is people taking this sick joy from hearing that two people were killed. Presumably they had families too, after all. People aren't just "good" or "evil". There are circumstances and things are not always black and white. If this were, to give the exaggerated example, two US soldiers killed by an Iraqi man whose store they had been "liberating" items/cash from, people wouldn't be so quick to back his right to do so.
    • h00paj00, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22@STKD: You're a moron.

      When someone is robbing you, do they really want to sit down and discuss their differences? Get a grip. You're not living in the real world. You're living in some turtleneck wearing documentary entitled "Psychiatry that doesn't work. Chapter One - Reasoning with armed robbers who have a crack addiction."
    • habnab, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16@ h00paj00: "@STKD: You're a moron."

      Here here, I second that!

      I had a bad life so let's all have a pity party for me waaaaah! I commit violent acts because I had a bad childhood Waaaah! Yes, there ARE "good" and "bad" people in this life. And as far as taking "sick pleasure" out of a couple of bad eggs going down for the dirt nap... eh, maybe a little. Maybe because I know that Mr. Lee's family, for starters, won't be attending HE and HIS WIFE'S funeral in the next few days. The scumbags' families get to go to a funeral, and based on how these two were cared for by their family, I'd say their family is probably used to funerals and visitation hours.
    • STKD, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3Ignorance and digg mob mentality of seeing equally moronic people back you does not make you any more right. If you don't consider life valuable, then I pity you no matter how many times you want to digg down. Meh.
    • DrawingTheSun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@STKD

      the reason we have to defend ourselves in the first place is because of people like them, they won't work or do anything constructive, they'll just take what they can, and when one of these robbers starts to use firearms, they are showing that they don't appreciate human life. these people are below human in my opinion, they don't have the logical capabilities that humans are meant to have. and they don't care about inncents being killed.

      its good they are gone.
      i don't know what your referring to about 2 solders taking stuff from a store in Iraq, but if that is the case ; that they were stealing and going around thinking that they were better then the Iraq's because they were American then i don't mind them being killed.
      i am all about what's morally right for everyone. I'm not Muslim or American so i am not biased about anything to do with your example and my response

      as a final note, if a person decided that is ok to end a human life for stealing and there own selfish purposes (even if it was for their family), then they forfeit their own human rights in the process and then i couldn't give a ***** if they died or not

    • habnab, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10@STKD

      Once again, I value human life. I do not however, value "scumbag" human life. Aren't you glad that Mr. Lee and his wife weren't the ones carted off in body bags? Wait... You're a social worker or a teacher/professor aren't you... Never mind.
    • STKD, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2I am? Strange, now I know why this software company I go to every day look at me so strangely.
    • aukxsona, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Oh your the new class...I see. The used to be wanted freedom...now ready to roll over for a scratch from uncle sam..

      Woof.
    • STKD, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Sorry. You seem to have assumed I'm an American. Welcome to the internet.
    • Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@STKD

      Do you believe that Mr. Lee should suffer legal consequences for his actions? Do you believe that the law should prohibit the use of deadly force in any situation, even self-defense?
    • aukxsona, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Indeed my bad...so what the hell do you care about our friggin country? Keep your nose in your business...yours probably has enough problems.
  • ragunax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Hell YEA! I'm from Philly and I am proud that this happened. Right now, the crime rate is at its highest...probably ever. I believe over 100 people have been killed in the city since the beginning of the year, with the majority of them being black. I have read articles in the Philadelphia magazine and various other publications stating that Police are just overwhelmed by all the crime. I have firefighter friends that say the same, always being called out to crime/maul/death scenes. It is ridiculous. It also doesn't help that Camden, NJ (hell) is across the Delaware River.

    Now there are stories out stating that teachers are now major targets for crime and attacks, due to not being able to fight back. Friggin' insane what is happening with these garbage low-life crumbs.

    Good to see someone standing up and not taking ***** from punk ass kids.

    "More violence isn't the answer!!!" It is when there is no one around to stop it. The only way. I don't agree with it and it will be the eventual downfall of many, but it unfortunately must be done.
    • Ayatollah, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Freedom lives in Philadelphia....as well as rampant poverty

      -215
  • SnapDragon21, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0More like PWNER
  • dtfinch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8The robbers got what they were asking for.
  • Gerbil, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1My favorite line:
    "...he was acting in self hyphen defense"
  • RedHerringHack, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9They died of EXTREME LEAD POISONING. and stupidity.
  • sneakeykop, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I for one applaud the guy...

    BRAVO!! BRAVO!!
  • Jeeum, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Is that the guy who owns the store next to David Letterman's show?

    Those pictures were so blurry...couldn't they download the pictures from the phone instead of just taking pictures of the phone?
  • Pile, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7Stories like this serve to polarize people and the gun enthusiasts come out of the woodwork to scream, "see we need gunz!!" and then they paint anyone who disagrees with them in any way as some sort of pacifist hippy who wants to take everyone's guns away.

    This is not the way things work. PETA is not the epitomy of the mentality of people who think animals need some form of protection, and neither are some mythological "take-away-everyones-guns" idea is representative of those who think we have too many guns in society. There is a middle area that most people fit into.

    I'm a gun enthusiast. I've had a gun put to my head. I have a CCW now. I would have no reservation against shooting someone who tried to rob me. HOWEVER, I also recognize that in many areas of the country, it's too damn easy to get guns, and some types of guns are more designed for offensive/war situations and it may not be that wise to make them as easily attainable. This is one of those common-sense GRAY AREAS that the most visible fringe aspect of the gun lobby pretends doesn't exist. It does.

    People should have the right to protect themselves. Whether you need an Uzi... that is a legitimate debate.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 123 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.