NJ Pharmacist Pulls Gun on Thief

[NJDrew1 0]

These are the kind of things that the press should report. Would be robber shot at by pharmacist in Winslow Township

http://philadelphia....ould-be-robber/

[mipafox 438]

I hope he enjoys his time in prison. And I'm sure he'll get the chance to brush up his pharmacological training.

[woodentoe 14]

I hope he enjoys his time in prison. And I'm sure he'll get the chance to brush up his pharmacological training.

 

Eh? Whose time in prison? No arrests.

[aguilar64 9]

■

[Qel Hoth 33]

According to the article it was in winslow township. Im not familiar with the name but it may be a privately owned pharmacy, and the pharmacist may be the owner, or he might have a permit for all we know.

[mipafox 438]

 

 

Eh? Whose time in prison? No arrests.

 

Like Zimmerman?

 

No, not like Zimmerman. Zimmerman was allowed to possess a firearm. That is an open question in this case.

 

Don't believe anything from the press within the first 48 hours, and "No arrests" never means no charges.

[alec.mc 180]

He brings his bicycle to a freaking robbery for a getaway vehicle?

[woodentoe 14]

Like Zimmerman?

 

No, not like Zimmerman. Zimmerman was allowed to possess a firearm. That is an open question in this case.

 

Don't believe anything from the press within the first 48 hours, and "No arrests" never means no charges.

 

Well, he is a pharmacist who is in a pharmacy. While it is an assumption that he is the owner....he would be allowed to possess.

[tony357 386]

Correct^^^^^^^^^^

[mipafox 438]

 

 

Well, he is a pharmacist who is in a pharmacy. While it is an assumption that he is the owner....he would be allowed to possess.

 

I haven't heard of a lot of "sole proprietorship" pharmacies lately. Let alone any sort of business. My assumption is that it is a corp or an LLC. He may not be an owner, he may be an employee. If he is an "owner," he is a shareholder, only a moron would run a pharmacy as a sole proprietorship. I would guess that since I had stock in BP while working there that I could have possessed a gun since I was an "owner."

 

I own a few businesses in NJ. Can I bring a handgun to one where I am 1% owner, 49% owner, 99% owner, or 100% owner? Considering that I am a shareholder in all of those scenarios, and that a corp actually owns the company and/or property in all of those cases, not me.

 

It aint the 1960s. The law was written for sole proprietors.

[woodentoe 14]

If he weren't an owner and allowed to possess, why wasnt he arrested on the spot in the DPRNJ? Wouldn't they have arrested him and let the judge sort it out? Isn't that what we're conditioned to expect?

[mipafox 438]

If he weren't an owner and allowed to possess, why wasnt he arrested on the spot in the DPRNJ? Wouldn't they have arrested him and let the judge sort it out? Isn't that what we're conditioned to expect?

 

You need to skip back a few posts for that.

 

Can you help me out with my question? Which businesses can I carry at?

[PK90 3,570]

If he weren't an owner and allowed to possess, why wasnt he arrested on the spot in the DPRNJ? Wouldn't they have arrested him and let the judge sort it out? Isn't that what we're conditioned to expect?

 

Because its Winslow where only the bad guys get arrested.

 

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk 2

[Pizza Bob 1,488]

Because its Winslow where only the bad guys get arrested.

 

:good:

[Daedalus 19]

Dredging up an old one:

 

Is there any cite to case law that states only the owner of a business can have a handgun on location? How about the property owner? Or is this another 'Nappen-ism" or common knowledge on the Internet?

 

Asbestos suit being pulled on now

[voyager9 3,434]

From the ABC version of the story

http://abclocal.go.c...ocal&id=8808156

 

The Camden County Prosecutor's office tells Action News that one man entered the business and demanded a prescription painkiller, Oxycontin, from the owner, pharmacist John Agyemang.

 

Rather than comply with the demand, prosecutors say, Agyemang pulled out a handgun and fired several times at the man.</p>

[NJKen 23]

I carry in my office and shop. Because I can!

Looks like thats one crack head that will think twice about who to rob in the future. Looks like he wiull be going to CVS in the future where people dont shoot back!

 

Ken

[hopper 36]

Dam, normally i would be driving right passed there around that time but have been working a late shift on wed , as far as the pharmacy its kinda right in the middle of a busy intersection and theres plenty of low income crime infested housing around there , somebody had to have seen something... im not sure about the owner operator thing though

[Dan 177]

I'm blurry on what the perceived threat was in this case that would justify using deadly force. Last time I heard, "asking" for something even if it is illegal isn't grounds for getting shot at. The bad guy must have threatend serious bodily harm or death as part of his "asking". Most likely more to the story than we know as usual.

 

Any case... +1 for the good guys!

[halbautomatisch 60]

I haven't heard of a lot of "sole proprietorship" pharmacies lately. Let alone any sort of business. My assumption is that it is a corp or an LLC. He may not be an owner, he may be an employee. If he is an "owner," he is a shareholder, only a moron would run a pharmacy as a sole proprietorship. I would guess that since I had stock in BP while working there that I could have possessed a gun since I was an "owner."

 

I own a few businesses in NJ. Can I bring a handgun to one where I am 1% owner, 49% owner, 99% owner, or 100% owner? Considering that I am a shareholder in all of those scenarios, and that a corp actually owns the company and/or property in all of those cases, not me.

 

It aint the 1960s. The law was written for sole proprietors.

So what if his business is an LLC or a corp, if he is the majority owner in the company he can carry in his business in NJ. If that were illegal, the NJSP would have locked up virtually all the small gun shop owners in NJ by now, they're all LLC's or corps and they all carry in their business.

 

You owning a few shares of BP does not make you a majority owner in the company, just like it does not entitle you to walk into their headquarters and do as you please there because you own a minute fraction of 1% of the company.

[Wastegate 9]

I hope he enjoys his time in prison. And I'm sure he'll get the chance to brush up his pharmacological training.

 

We are our own worst enemy in this state.

[Zeke 5,504]

If this pharmacist gets charged logic has forever left this state.

Witnesses state " I guess he he messed with the wrong guy! We're jus glad he ( pharmacist /sheepdog) didn't get hurt"

 

A+ for the good guys

[Soju 153]

Dredging up an old one:

 

Is there any cite to case law that states only the owner of a business can have a handgun on location? How about the property owner? Or is this another 'Nappen-ism" or common knowledge on the Internet?

 

Asbestos suit being pulled on now

 

Most people say it only applies to the owner, but most people also say this based only on their interpretation or implication, and NOT what the law actually says. As far as I am aware, there is nothing that specifically says you must be the owner, nevertheless the sole owner.

 

Here are two threads in which this was discussed. Nobody was able to definitively prove one way or the other though.

 

http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php?/topic/30128-carrying-at-work/

http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php?/topic/23021-place-of-business/

[tony357 386]

I'm blurry on what the perceived threat was in this case that would justify using deadly force. Last time I heard, "asking" for something even if it is illegal isn't grounds for getting shot at. The bad guy must have threatend serious bodily harm or death as part of his "asking". Most likely more to the story than we know as usual.

 

Any case... +1 for the good guys!

I'm blurry on what the perceived threat was in this case that would justify using deadly force. Last time I heard, "asking" for something even if it is illegal isn't grounds for getting shot at. The bad guy must have threatend serious bodily harm or death as part of his "asking". Most likely more to the story than we know as usual.

 

Any case... +1 for the good guys!

 

He tried to rob the guy,, so if you do not see a weapon then what do you do.. say shoot me or get phuck out?

[Tosser 61]

Because its Winslow where only the bad guys get arrested.

 

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk 2

 

Paul would be a SME on Winslow PD/TWP.

[PK90 3,570]

From what I have gathered, the shooter will likely be charged. More to follow.

 

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk 2

[johnott 5]

As I see it, the problem for the pharmacist is twofold: 1) he continued the chase outside the store and 2) he fired on the fleeing suspect. When he stepped outside the store was he still on his own property? If not he may be in for trouble. And unless the suspect was firing at him while he was running away it will be hard to claim shooting in self defense.

 

I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

[Zeke 5,504]

As I see it, the problem for the pharmacist is twofold: 1) he continued the chase outside the store and 2) he fired on the fleeing suspect. When he stepped outside the store was he still on his own property? If not he may be in for trouble. And unless the suspect was firing at him while he was running away it will be hard to claim shooting in self defense.

 

I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

 

As a newb here

 

Um, does anybody here think the pharmacist is in the wrong and should be punished?

 

I do not.

[TheWombat 67]

As a newb here

 

Um, does anybody here think the pharmacist is in the wrong and should be punished?

 

I do not.

 

We do not have all the facts yet, however a firearm is for DEFENSE not for punishing.. If the person was running away and not presenting clear danger to the shooter (or others) then the shooter has overstepped the mark in pursuing etc and was wrong.

 

Owning firearms and using them comes with a responsibility.

 

TheWombat

[Zeke 5,504]

 

 

We do not have all the facts yet, however a firearm is for DEFENSE not for punishing.. If the person was running away and not presenting clear danger to the shooter (or others) then the shooter has overstepped the mark in pursuing etc and was wrong.

 

Owning firearms and using them comes with a responsibility.

 

TheWombat

 

Thank you.

I can understand this logic.