TexasCHLforum.com

student fends off armed robbers http://articles.philly.com/2011-09-06/n ... -condition" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Good for him, he was ready.
I hope his wounds heal quickly.

He should be a spokesman for CC on Campus now.

he is good shoot,but smoking a butt at 2:00 AM?

Beiruty wrote:he is good shoot,but smoking a butt at 2:00 AM?

Not that strange for a college student, they have weird sleep schedules.

All-nighters are real common when you are cramming for a test or writing a paper. This guy is 21, so he is probably at least a Junior, so that would not be unusual as you get farther into your major.

Additionally, if he had late classes the next day, maybe he had been out with friends and just gotten in and was smoking his last one before bed.

This doesn't surprise me at all. Like many areas surrounding colleges and universities, the area directly around Temple is a pretty rough neighborhood and has been than way for over 30 years. I used to have to make night service calls to businesses near by and it was a real "treat" especially in the hot summer months.

I'm glad that the student was able to defend himself, even if he was wounded in the process. It is interesting that his home is in the town where we used to live. Bucks County is a lot more rural than the Temple area of Phila.

paulhailes wrote:

Beiruty wrote:he is good shoot,but smoking a butt at 2:00 AM?

Not that strange for a college student, they have weird sleep schedules.

I'm 40 and I STILL have my "college" schedule...meaning that I stay up until late (or early?) hours....hard habit to break. Going to bed at 1 am is "early" for me. I wake up at 7:30 am whether I go to bed at 1 am or 3 am. Wife is a night-owl too. I work better late at night.

good for this guy. way to be prepared and not leave your weapon sitting on the kitchen counter or in the safe because 'you're on your own front porch!'


on another note, the fact that the press pretty much relayed ANY information pertaining to guns that was posted on his facebook is the precise reason i keep all that stuff OFF of mine. i'd hate to have to use my weapon in self defense, then have a jury convict me because i was considered 'a gun nut who was just waiting for a reason to shoot someone.'

Hate that he got shot, but glad he's ok. Too bad he couldn't have gotten all three of them.

From the article..

"The world looks different when you're looking at it down the barrel of a loaded gun," his [Facebook] page says. "Whether that's good or bad depends on which end you're looking down."

She said Eells had a license to carry a firearm and probably would not be charged.

Probably???
Really????
There should be NO QUESTION!
A.) He should be covered under the Castle Doctrine and
B.) He was wounded too. So, unless he shot himself its an obvious, slam dunk case of pure self defense.

Formalities I suppose but still, they shouldn't even entertain the idea of possibly charging him.

MedicMan218 wrote:

She said Eells had a license to carry a firearm and probably would not be charged.

Probably???
Really????
There should be NO QUESTION!
A.) He should be covered under the Castle Doctrine and
B.) He was wounded too. So, unless he shot himself its an obvious, slam dunk case of pure self defense.

Formalities I suppose but still, they shouldn't even entertain the idea of possibly charging him.

Here's one word that explains the cognitive dissonance...... "Philadelphia."

MedicMan218 wrote:

She said Eells had a license to carry a firearm and probably would not be charged.

Probably???
Really????
There should be NO QUESTION!
A.) He should be covered under the Castle Doctrine and
B.) He was wounded too. So, unless he shot himself its an obvious, slam dunk case of pure self defense.

Formalities I suppose but still, they shouldn't even entertain the idea of possibly charging him.

Sounded to me like the Police are doing their diligence before declaring.
Did the victim provoke the attack in any way?
Did they know each other and this fight carried over from someplace else?

I don't have any problem with "probably" in this case.

RoyGBiv wrote:

MedicMan218 wrote:

She said Eells had a license to carry a firearm and probably would not be charged.

Probably???
Really????
There should be NO QUESTION!
A.) He should be covered under the Castle Doctrine and
B.) He was wounded too. So, unless he shot himself its an obvious, slam dunk case of pure self defense.

Formalities I suppose but still, they shouldn't even entertain the idea of possibly charging him.

Sounded to me like the Police are doing their diligence before declaring.
Did the victim provoke the attack in any way?
Did they know each other and this fight carried over from someplace else?

I don't have any problem with "probably" in this case.

I had the same thought after I posted it as to what you brought up but based on whats available in the story is what I was basing my comment on.
We'll see I suppose.