NJDrew1 0 Posted September 12, 2012 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/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mipafox 438 Posted September 12, 2012 I hope he enjoys his time in prison. And I'm sure he'll get the chance to brush up his pharmacological training. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
woodentoe 14 Posted September 12, 2012 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Qel Hoth 33 Posted September 12, 2012 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mipafox 438 Posted September 12, 2012 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
alec.mc 180 Posted September 12, 2012 He brings his bicycle to a freaking robbery for a getaway vehicle? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
woodentoe 14 Posted September 12, 2012 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tony357 386 Posted September 12, 2012 Correct^^^^^^^^^^ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mipafox 438 Posted September 12, 2012 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
woodentoe 14 Posted September 12, 2012 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? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mipafox 438 Posted September 12, 2012 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? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PK90 3,573 Posted September 12, 2012 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pizza Bob 1,488 Posted September 12, 2012 Because its Winslow where only the bad guys get arrested. :good: Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Daedalus 19 Posted September 12, 2012 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voyager9 3,440 Posted September 12, 2012 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> Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NJKen 23 Posted September 13, 2012 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hopper 36 Posted September 13, 2012 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dan 177 Posted September 13, 2012 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! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
halbautomatisch 60 Posted September 13, 2012 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wastegate 9 Posted September 13, 2012 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zeke 5,504 Posted September 13, 2012 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Soju 153 Posted September 13, 2012 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/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tony357 386 Posted September 13, 2012 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? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tosser 61 Posted September 13, 2012 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PK90 3,573 Posted September 13, 2012 From what I have gathered, the shooter will likely be charged. More to follow. Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
johnott 5 Posted September 13, 2012 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zeke 5,504 Posted September 13, 2012 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheWombat 67 Posted September 13, 2012 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zeke 5,504 Posted September 13, 2012 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites