ARMED thugs steal Million $ of watches at car dealer. ARMED guards refuse to shoot!!

T

Text Drivers are Killers

Joe Biden - "Time to put Trump in the bullseye."
The fact that the guards wouldn't shoot tells me this is yet another case of insurance fraud by a hoax theft. Happens every day.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/brazen-smash-grab-suspects-loot-143427540.html

dec 12 2021 Armed smash-and-grab looters broke into a high-end exotic car dealership in Chicago, stealing millions of dollars in watches.

"We're here to run a legitimate business, not be a western shootout," Joe Perillo, co-owner of Gold Coast Exotic Motor Cars, told ABC7.

Two men reportedly entered the dealership, which boasts a showroom of Lamborghinis and Bentleys, around noon on Saturday. One man was armed with a gun and stood by the entrance of the dealership while the other man used a hammer to smash display cases and allegedly stole about eight luxury watches, Fox 32 reported.

"He was smart enough not to raise the gun, because my people had guns," said Perillo. "If he raised that gun, he would have been shot, we’d probably be in court defending ourselves."

The watches were stolen in a matter of seconds and worth millions of dollars, according to the store.
Click to expand...
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
The fact that the guards wouldn't shoot tells me this is yet another case of insurance fraud by a hoax theft. Happens every day.
Click to expand...

In most states (except TX) a person cannot use deadly force to protect property. Those guards were probably worried about being charged if they shot the looters. This issue was discussed in the Rittenhouse case regarding his claim that he was going to protect the used car lot property.
 
Flush said:
In most states (except TX) a person cannot use deadly force to protect property. Those guards were probably worried about being charged if they shot the looters. This issue was discussed in the Rittenhouse case regarding his claim that he was going to protect the used car lot property.

2ieLV4Qy2SScg.gif
Click to expand...



Is that so?
 
Flash said:
In most states (except TX) a person cannot use deadly force to protect property. Those guards were probably worried about being charged if they shot the looters. This issue was discussed in the Rittenhouse case regarding his claim that he was going to protect the used car lot property.
Click to expand...

Can't you read??? The thugs had guns!!!!
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
Can't you read??? The thugs had guns!!!!
Click to expand...

You have to read the entire article. As it said, they did not point the guns at anybody which means they did not threaten their lives. You have a right to carry a gun without somebody shooting you. If they shot the looters they may be facing a murder charge.
 
Flash said:
In most states (except TX) a person cannot use deadly force to protect property. Those guards were probably worried about being charged if they shot the looters.
Click to expand...

If that is the case, then why were there armed guards ???

Methinks OP is correct about insurance ...
 
Flush said:
You have to read the entire article. As it said, they did not point the guns at anybody which means they did not threaten their lives. You have a right to carry a gun without somebody shooting you. If they shot the looters they may be facing a murder charge.

2ieLV4Qy2SScg.gif
Click to expand...

Is that so?
 
Chief Justice Flush's legal opinion is circling the drain.

Robbery is defined by Illinois law as taking property from another person by either using force or threatening to use force.

If, during the commission of the robbery, the defendant is carrying a firearm, that is aggravated robbery.

Sec. 18-2. Armed robbery.
(720 ILCS 5/18-2)

(a) A person commits armed robbery when he or she violates Section 18-1; and

(1) he or she carries on or about his or her person or is otherwise armed with a dangerous weapon other than a firearm; or

(2) he or she carries on or about his or her person or is otherwise armed with a firearm

In 1961, Illinois adopted the American Law Institute's Model Penal Code, which specifies that deadly force can be used if the person against whom the force is used is attempting to commit or consummate arson, burglary, robbery or other felonious theft or property destruction and either:

[a] has employed or threatened deadly force against or in the presence of the actor; or

the use of nondeadly force to prevent the commission or the consummation of the crime would expose the actor or another in his presence to substantial danger of serious bodily injury.
 
Flash said:
You have to read the entire article. As it said, they did not point the guns at anybody which means they did not threaten their lives. You have a right to carry a gun without somebody shooting you. If they shot the looters they may be facing a murder charge.
Click to expand...

HAHAHA. Hey moron. How long does it take point a gun at someone?. If someone breaks into your house or business and they have a gun, you have to shoot. THINK
 
Grumpy said:
If that is the case, then why were there armed guards ???

Methinks OP is correct about insurance ...
Click to expand...

Armed guards were probably to deter a robbery, but, it obviously didn't work, did it? I'm sure insurance was probably a factor, also.
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
HAHAHA. Hey moron. How long does it take point a gun at someone?. If someone breaks into your house or business and they have a gun, you have to shoot. THINK
Click to expand...

You failed to address the main problem--you cannot use deadly force just to protect property. If someone points a gun at you that becomes a different situation. But, that means anybody legally carrying a gun could be shot under your reasoning. Try checking the law rather than just talking off the top of your flat little head.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top