Tempe Gun Store Owner Who Shot at Alleged Thief Never Charged

• <p>Fascinating examine. My weblog has opened up countless possibilities that I don’t consider I’d even now be self-employed if I didn’t publish on-line. Quite of luck with your extremely online endeavors</p>

• <p>Daren, I'd like to point out that the author of this article is not a journalist. He is a blogger. Blogger's can put their own feelings and opinions into a story if they choose. At no point did I think that Stern wants to get rid of the second amendment. I don't think we should get rid of the second amendment but I do think that guns are mostly for the scared and weak.<br /> Also I'd really like for someone to tell me why something that was specifically intended to kill is a good thing. </p>

• <p>I apologize for putting empty pistol in quotes, I didn't mean to put those words into your mouth/pen.</p> <p>However, the AK-47 pistol was not loaded. The gun on Saridakis belt was loaded. They were a part of two separate actions, the ak-47 was the theft, Saridakis loaded sidearm was during the scuffle.</p> <p>Another issue I have, which may not be entirely your fault, is that tacking on the word assault to the ammunition used is not accurate. The Remington .223 round is a standard rifle round. Hunters use the same ammunition in some of their hunting rifles, sportsmen use it in their rifles for target practice. The term assault rifle (or assault pistol) is typically used when a negative connotation is associated with the term... such as the assault rifle ban... just because a rifle is a replica of an actual assault rifle used in the military does not make it an assault rifle. Assault rifles require the capability to shoot in a fully automatic mode. Unless Saridakis is a class 3 weapons dealer, he would not have full auto weapons in stock... let alone available for a snatch and grab.</p> <p>My problem with your "all's well that ends well" comment is that it borders on the realm of sarcasm... it was like you were saying, oh well, Saridakis doesn't care about it since it's increased his business. </p> <p>There is a definite air of anti-gun, anti-second amendment with this article. Just to be sure I was being fair, I asked a few co-workers to review it as well. They seemed to share the same thoughts about the article that I had... and they are not all pro-gun.</p> <p>A little off topic - I do applaud you for defending an article that is just about 6 months old...<br /> </p>

• <p>You're misreading the article. I never implied the owner's actions were "wrong," and the article does not state that Jones tried to steal "an empty pistol." </p> <p>I interviewed the gun shop owner for this article, and he knows best what happened. As I quoted Saridakis as saying, he could have killed Jones legally during the scuffle. The shot was fired after the scuffle, as Jones tried to drive away. That's the reason prosecutors didn't let Saridakis off the hook for three months.</p> <p>What part of "all's well that ends well" are you confused about?<br /> </p>

• <p>No, your article does not cover these points.</p> <p>While, as your article stated, he attempted to steal an empty pistol... that is not the same as the assailant trying to take the loaded gun from the owner's holster during the scuffle.</p> <p>You've confused the facts. You have taken 2 separate actions and merged them into one false statement.</p> <p>Also, I'm not sure that throwing the weapon back at the owner should be considered "giving back" the stolen weapon.</p> <p>My disappointment with your inability to write an objective article still stands. As a journalist, you are required to write an objective article that shows all sides of the story, without prejudice. You obviously are against the second amendment and cannot put your personal views to the side to deliver a professional article.</p> <p>Again, if this was an editorial, I would not have these issues.</p> <p>Just for your knowledge, it is customary for police to arrest both the assailant and the person defending themselves (or their property) in a case such as this. It is illegal to discharge a firearm in city limits unless it is in self-defense. If Saridakis had any wrong doing, he would have been charged for unlawful discharge of a weapon at the minimum. Since he was not charged with this simple infraction... this indicates that the city of Tempe recognized this as a lawful use of a firearm for self-defense.</p> <p>Would you also argue that Jones should have been allowed to get away with stealing a weapon like that? </p> <p>Why was Saridakis's actions so wrong in your opinion?</p> <p>If Jones was allowed to get away, and stole someone else's weapon... would you have crucified Saridakis for not stopping him?</p> <p>In my opinion, the major reason someone steals a gun is because they legally cannot get one. I applaud Saridakis for stopping Jones because if Jones got away with that weapon and shot up some business, old girlfriend, or school... that would have been a real tragedy.</p>

• <p>Daren, the article already speaks to those points. You may want to read it again.</p> <p>Ray<br /> </p>

• <p>And we all know that Goolge is never wrong! It is the sole docterine that we should all live our lives by.</p> <p>As for this stort, it's a sham. Ray Stern should be ashamed of himself for allowing such subjectivity in this article. This is a NEWS story, not an editorial, to put such anti-gun semantics in this article is againast what all journalists are charged to do.</p> <p>If you would have done your due dilligence on this story, you would have found that the assailent attempted to draw a loaded weapon from the owner as they wrestled in the gun shop. That alone was the green light that the owner was allowed to shoot the assailent. </p> <p>Do your research, be a real journalist, or are you too scared to do your job the right way.</p>

• <p>"Assault pistol" may not be in your official firearm lexicon, but a Google search shows there is, too, such a thing as an AK-47 pistol. It's basically the assault rifle with a short barrel and no stock.</p>

• <p>An AK-47 "assault pistol"? Now, the guy who wrote this article is REALLY showing his ignorance. Does he think we're all stupid? There is no such thing as a AK-47 assault pistol!</p>

• <p>"Thank you for making my point."</p> <p>Well you're darn tootin' welcome then :-) </p> <p>In the words of my generation: </p> <p>" " <br /> [this space intentionally left blank]</p> <p><br /> </p>

• <p>"Too many issues have become polarized in this country and I don't believe that this is healthy for us."</p> <p>Thank you for making my point.</p>

• <p>Why one would think that the ACLU cares about Mr Jones in this particular case is frankly beyond me (not to say there are issues - I wasn't there and don't know 100% of the case, etc), but in general yes I do happen to support the ACLU on some Constitutional rights issues, but definitely not regarding their stance on the Second Amendment - they believe that the 2nd Amendment is a collective right not an individual one.</p> <p>I support the EFF also, who has just as much to do with this case as the ACLU in my view as it stands, which is to say slim to none. </p> <p>And I respect your opinion on the subject, I really do. I just don't believe it should be made into laws that curtail Constitutional rights as an American. </p> <p>I don't see how not supporting the ACLU in all their endeavors makes a republican a coward, but OK you have a right to believe what you will. But if a Democrat, who also happens to be a Buddhist for example, fails to support the ACLJ in all their "fight for religious freedoms", would that make them cowardly? I don't believe so.</p> <p>For the record, I'm a democrat who in this decade turned not declared (AZ's independent designation), and who still mostly votes for moderate minded democrats when I find them (they do exist). I strongly believe in a woman's right to choose, and that we as a society have lost the notion of the importance of maintaining a social contract with the people (full list of beliefs omitted for sake of time and reading). </p> <p>I also just happen to believe the 2nd Amendment should be liberally interpreted and defended (no pun intended) and is just as important as the other Amendments to defend the People's Rights ahnd Freedoms, as a whole. </p> <p>We need to stop clumping pro-gun rights with the right wing. In my opinion its bigger than that. Too many issues have become polarized in this country and I don't believe that this is healthy for us.<br /> </p>

• <p>Ok, so maybe I should have phrased it "wants" or "desires" rather than need. I was actually trying to point out that the AK-47 pistol, to me anyway, carries a certain connotation. The sort of connotation that you would expect to attract (or create) a criminal. Mr. Jones, if not already a criminal, seems to have become one in order to get his hands on that gun.</p> <p>I also am not proposing any new legislation regarding that gun. Quite the opposite, I pointed out the existing laws were not being enforced. I wonder how Mr. Jones background check turned out (if he filled out the form).</p> <p>I also supported Mr. Saridakis' right to defend himself.</p> <p>Will you support the ACLU when they try to defend Mr. Jones? (Assuming they will even go near the case.) Or will you continue to be "coward/republicans"?</p>

• <p>Sorry I know this you directed this to T. Lore, but the fun part about comments on the Web is they're like arse holes, and here's mine, such as it is: </p> <p>"I have to ask again what kind of person needs a CONCEALABLE assault rifle?"</p> <p>The question of whether there's a need for one or not is not relevant in the least to me and to many others. Because I NEED one, not necessarily. Yet consider that almost any gun can be or be altered to be made easily concealed (the Pistol variant of the AK design just starts that way). Start judging need, and pretty soon there's no right in the the Bill of Rights left. </p> <p>I'm sure Joseph Stalin started out with the best of intentions, but in the end millions of people turned out to not to need their lives and many millions more their constitutional freedoms. Yeah they had a Constitution - now think about that for a moment...</p> <p>As they say (as if from a contemporary political candidate, guess who...): "My friends, it's a slippery slope."</p>

• <p>T. Lore:</p> <p>I did not mean to imply that your (or my) second amendment right is up for debate. In fact, I will be more than happy to take up my rifles in support of your right should that day come. That is my obligation according to the Declaration and my right according to the Constitution (and now a supreme court decision). But let me ask you this, will you support my other rights? Do you only contribute to the efforts of the NRA or do you support all pro-right organizations, say, the ACLU for example?</p> <p>You seem as militant on the issue as the "coward/democrats".</p> <p>Now that you understand that I support your right, I have to ask again what kind of person needs a CONCEALABLE assault rifle? Especially in light of the plethora of high quality handguns available. I don't believe that gun is marketed at people sticking it in their pockets with their CCW.</p>

• <p>BTW, some more observations on the story and on comments.</p> <p>1) There are 'assault rifles' that fire handgun ammo, and other handgun style firearms that fire ammo traditionally used in rifles (and in shotguns, such as the Taurus Judge that can fire 410ga shotshells). The addition of this info in the story is a crummy red haring meant to scare folks (booooo!). In reality 'assault weapon' ammo is designed to avoid killing its target, in order to wound the enemy and tied up more enemy soldiers to care for the wounded. Pray that if you were ever shot or shot at that its with 'assault weapon' ammo, and not hunting ammo, or even with law enforcement standard carry ammo. You'd have much better odds of survival. Is this needed? See previous comment.</p> <p>2) The AK style rifles circulating in the US are not 'assault rifles' (battlefield arms have fully automatic functionality). The kinds of things banned in the Assault Weapons Ban in '94 had little to do with real assault weapons and everything to the illusion of safety. Or do you really think banning bayonets attached to long guns made anyone any safer? Oh and things like high capacity magazines? Well again see my previous comment as to whether they're needed or should be allowed...</p> <p>3) Citizens have the right to make citizen arrests, in order to detain a suspect they've caught in the act for the police when they arrive. You better not get it wrong though and falsely arrest someone. The police just can't always be there exactly when they're needed - rarely can they be in fact. I challenge anyone to find a police officer who would disagree with this statement. </p>

• <p>BTW, some more observations on the story and on comments.</p> <p>1) There are 'assault rifles' that fire handgun ammo, and other handgun style firearms that fire ammo traditionally used in rifles (and in shotguns, such as the Taurus Judge that can fire 410ga shotshells). The addition of this info in the story is a crummy red haring meant to scare folks (booooo!). In reality 'assault weapon' ammo is designed to avoid killing it target, in order to wound the enemy and tied up more enemy soldiers to care for the wounded. Pray that if you were ever shot or shot at that its with 'assault weapon' ammo, and not hunting ammo, or even with law enforcement standard carry ammo. You'd have much better odds of survival. Is this needed? See previous comment.</p> <p>2) The AK style rifles circulating in the US are not 'assault rifles' (battlefield arms have fully automatic functionality). The kinds of things banned in the Assault Weapons Ban in '94 had little to do with real assault weapons and everything to the illusion of safety. Or do you really think banning bayonets attached to long guns made anyone any safer? Oh and things like high capacity magazines? Well again see my previous comment as to whether they're needed or should be allowed...</p> <p>3) Citizens have the right to make citizen arrests, in order to detain a suspect they've caught in the act for the police when they arrive. You better not get it wrong though and falsely arrest someone. The police just can't always be there exactly when they're needed - rarely can they be in fact. I challenge anyone to find a police officer who would disagree with this statement. </p>

• <p>Who NEEDS fourth amendment protection of their car trunk during a routine traffic stop? who NEEDS the right not to self incriminate themselves while being questioned by police? </p> <p>Oh wait, that's not fair huh? I mean noone's supposed to apply the same logic to Amendments OTHER THAN the 2nd Amendment, right? </p> <p>Start giving away your rights to one, and you WILL loose them all, especially when it comes to the 1st and the 2nd Amendments. This newspaper understands that in terms of the 1st, and I hope more people begin to better understand the 2nd Amendment's role in the Bill of Rights and why you can't tread on it without treading on them all.</p>

• <p>Mr Wilbur,</p> <p>"What kind of person needs a CONCEALABLE assault rifle anyway?"</p> <p>The answer is: "People who will have to protect people like you, after you have done your best to give away all of our rights. and it will note pe the police or the obamessiahs civil security force.</p> <p>Please show me where, except in the mind of a coward/democrat, our second amendments are up for debate? </p> <p>False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.</p>

• <p>Mr. Stern:</p> <p>I take it the point of publishing this story was to point out that the Tempe police had a shoplifter (according to your story he was outside the store with a firearm he did not purchase) and the prosecutors let him go?</p> <p>Perhaps you wanted to point out that Saridakis was justified in his use of lethal force in response to a threat to his life (being run over)?</p> <p>Or, maybe, you just wanted to sympathize with Mikhail Kalashnikov when he said "I'm proud of my invention, but I'm sad that it is used by terrorists." AK-47 <i>pistol</i>? What an ugly application of his work. What kind of person needs a CONCEALABLE assault rifle anyway?</p>

TotalComments: 20