Customer helps break up gas station holdup

[Bold Lib]

A Westland man, who asked not to be identified in the newspaper, told police he was near the gas pumps when he saw the robbery unfolding. He said the gunman was yelling at the woman to give him the money and kicking and hitting the car door.

When the door was opened, the Westland man said the gunman grabbed the money from the woman and then cocked the gun. At that point, the Westland man said he yelled “Back away from the girl” and drew his handgun, which he is licensed to carry concealed.

“The suspect was able to get away with the bag of money. He had a handgun at the head of the victim when the witness intervened,” said Sgt. David Zucchetto. “If the witness hadn't intervened, that woman could have been killed or injured. The suspect might have taken her and her vehicle.”

http://www.hometownlife.com/article/20100812/NEWS24/8120510/1041/Customer+helps+break+up+gas+station+holdup


Glad no one was hurt in this. I'm also glad the the CCL holder was there.

[armueller2001]

1. OK I have a question

If someone is pointing a gun at someone, why the hell would you yell "Back away from the girl" and startle them? So you yell at the guy, he shoots the girl, and then turns and tries to squeeze of a couple shots in your direction.

Wouldn't it be better to just shoot them, since they are obviously threatening someone's life?

[one-eyed fat man]

2. Depends a lot on state law

Here in Kentucky, when you are defending yourself, you can react on the circumstances as they appear. If you are defending another, you are justified only if the circumstances actually warrant. The benefit of the doubt is in your favor. For example, if you are threatened by someone with a hand in their coat pocket saying, "I have a gun" you get to believe them and are justified in defending yourself, even if it turns out it was just their finger in the pocket.

On the other hand, if you intervene on another's behalf, the actual facts must warrant the person you are defending would have been justified to defend themselves, not just appearances. If you mistake an arrest for a robbery and shoot the undercover cop by mistake, you are in a heap of trouble.

"Wouldn't it be better to just shoot them, since they are obviously threatening someone's life?"

Assuming that such is the case, that is, in fact, a tough call. Except for a shot which causes instantaneous destruction of the central nervous system, shooting someone may not cause them to immediately stop. Wounds which prove fatal, eventually, may not be enough even if the interval is only a few seconds. By hollering and startling the shooter you may succeed in him no longer pointing the gun at her. If when he turns to look at you and the gun reflexively comes off the victim that is good. If you shoot him and he reflexively pulls the trigger while the gun is against her head, that is bad. These are though decisions, a jury make take weeks second-guessing if what you decided in a split second was right.

In this case, it appears the CCW holder made a good call, the victim was not harmed any further and the criminal decided he'd rather run than fight someone who wasn't already helpless.

[Bold Lib]

3. why the hell would you yell "Back away from the girl"??? Did you read

the article? If so re-read it, the answer is there.


Wouldn't it be better to just shoot them??? That is a personal moral decision. I don't know of anyone that wants to take a life. This CCL person it appears did not want to take a life and gave the suspect a chance to live. What would I have done. I don't know because I was not there.

Unfortunately people can play "what if" on these kinds of incidents till the cows come home and argue back and forth till infinity. What matters in this case is that it ended without anyone getting hurt and the suspect in custody. I wouldn't ask for a better outcome.

[chibajoe]

4. You REALLY do not want to shoot someone if you can possibly avoid it

I've been in the unfortunate position to have held someone at gun point, and I can tell you that the LAST thing I wanted to do was to have to pull the trigger. Luckly, the cops (and NG) showed up a few seconds later and I didn't have to make that decision. The best resolution is when the good guys go home and the bad guys go to jail, which is exactly what happened in that news story.

[GreenStormCloud]

5. Yes. Opening fire w/o warning would be better.

Most people, in such situtions, have a strong tendency to yell a warning. It is just human nature to do so, but is tactically wrong.

If the situation is bad enough to draw the gun, it is bad enough to shoot as soon as you are on target.

[safeinOhio]

6. What an instructor said about

getting involved.
You see a 240 pound, 6' 4" man holding down a small woman and striking her over and over with a drawn gun in his hand. You draw your weapon and shoot him.

What you didn't know. The man was an undercover cop and the victim was a crack user that just attacked a 90 year old woman and was being chased by the police.

I would say yelling to stop would at least give the person time to ID himself. Not saying you should not get involved, just that you best have it figured out and not jump to conclusions based on only what you are seeing.

[oneshooter]

7. What you did in your scenario

was to stop a illegal act, a cop "holding down a small woman and striking her over and over with a drawn gun in his hand". That is not legal for the police to do, well maybe in Ohio it is. That is assault under the law. Once the perp is down and cuffed the duty of the police is to protect the person and remand him/her to the courts. Not to administer punishment.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[safeinOhio]

8. I didn't see the

gun or knife in her hand either while she was resisting arrest. Anyway, to have shot the cop would still have been legal problem for bystander. The point is, to shoot first as suggested by some can spell trouble. I agree with the citizen taking the least lethal action that both stopped the attack and no one was killed.

[GreenStormCloud]

9. You are in Burger King and you see the guy pull a gun a yell, "Gimme the money".

Your scenario assumes that you come upon the action part way through the activity.

I fully agree that you need to know the entire story. In most cases, things are pretty obvious.

You are in bank. Man produces sawed off shotgun and demands money from the clerk. What more do you need to know?

[safeinOhio]

12. CCWs not allowed in banks

in my town. I save everybody and go to jail, no more ccw or gun ownership. Same in the post office or local mall.

[oneshooter]

13. They are in Texas, as long as they are not posted 30.06.

Post office is a Federal bldg, not allowed there. Local Mall has to post proper signage (30.06 posting) if not then only if you "show" can they say anything, concealed means CONCEALED!

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Glassunion]

24. 30.06 posting

Does that mean that I just cannot bring in my M1?

I find it funny they designate the sign with the same numbers as a caliber.

[oneshooter]

25. 30.06 not 30-06 n/t

[Glassunion]

26. I'm an "enthusiast".

3006, 30.06, 30:06 it's all the same. I can't even say three thousand and six without the word ought.

:sarcasm:

[GreenStormCloud]

32. There is a certain ironic humor in that.

By coincidence, it happens to be the section of the law that deals with it.

[PavePusher]

16. Ohio has State Preemption of gun laws.

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/ohio.pdf

If that is a local ordinance, it is likely not enforceable.

Now, if it is the policy of the banks themselves, that is perfectly legal, but would not likely be grounds for pulling your permit.

If a bank wants to cause trouble for you over your weapon, after you saved lives, I'd sue them shoeless.

[mvccd1000]

17. Open or Concealed carry is allowed in banks in AZ...

... and I haven't heard of any trouble as a result.

In fact, anecdotal evidence from reading the newspapers would seem to show that even most bank robbers don't tend to actually show a weapon during the robbery.

[spin]

23. Do bank robbers obey that law? ...

If so we need to pass it in Florida.

[mvccd1000]

14. And if you "tactically" shot an undercover cop or actor in a movie...

... how do you explain that one?

If you pulled the trigger and killed the gunman and then the three college drama students who were filming their action movie for the semester started screaming and running toward you from the edge of the parking lot, what would you do?

I open carry and support no gun control laws, but even I would not shoot in a situation like that where I did not know all the players.

(Not to mention shooting at a gas pump... THAT's a brilliant plan!)

[safeinOhio]

29. You are smart

Once you pull the trigger there are no "whoops" I didn't know. If I'm not 100% sure, I'm not pulling the trigger on the situation. If I know the players, family or friends, it's a different story.

[GreenStormCloud]

31. Keep inventing "What if..." scenarios.

All of the them that your side invents depends upon me walking up partway through the action. A typical mugging take only a few seconds. A typical armed robbery is also quick. And NONE of those what-ifs have actually happened in real life. But there have been numerous occasion when CCWers have defended innocent citizens.

[mvccd1000]

40. "Innocent Citizens" have just as much right to carry a pistol as I do.

If they're too naive to avail themselves of that right, I don't have much sympathy.

There are too many things that can go wrong and only one thing that can possibly go right in that scenario. It's a clear "no-shoot" situation to me.

[mvccd1000]

59. BTW, which side is "my side?"

If you've read any of my other posts here, you know that I'm a strong supporter of open carry, concealed carry without a permit, state preemption of local firearms laws, and the repeal of nearly all gun control laws. I regularly open carry myself; everywhere from the bank, to the gas station, to the grocery store, to hiking in the desert.

Explain how "my side" invents stories?

I'm calling it like I see it; I'm probably more likely than most to have a gun on me at that gas station, but from the facts presented in that story it's a clear no-shoot situation.

If you're saying here that you WOULD shoot, given the facts as presented, I'm calling you a reckless individual.

[Hoyt]

10. Playing "Judge and Jury" -- That's why I am against folks carrying guns in public.

Just my view. I think the guy did the right thing. He probably had sense enough to know he'd just as likely hit an innocent person if he started firing.

[SteveM]

11. Funny, I concluded the opposite: I am in favor of public-carry...

(concealed or otherwise) so that when a thug decides to thug-out, there is a measure of protection for law-abiding citizens.

Incidentally, most use of firearms in self-defense doesn't involve shooting the weapon; in fact, very few such incidents result in a gun being fired.

[Hoyt]

20. Please pay attention. I responded to the poster who said why didn't he just shoot him.

And it only takes one such toter to kill an innocent bystander. Shooting human shaped targets and watching a video does not prepare folks to carry in public. Again, just my view.

[Pullo]

27. Statistics show people who are issued CCW's.....

..... are far less prone to commit a violent crime than the public at large.

While I don't have a CCW, my view is good public policy making comes from using facts and logic rather than emotional impulsiveness.

[SteveM]

54. No one fired a gun? That's what I thought. Fight ended, punk in jail.

[mvccd1000]

15. Enough sense to know he'd hit an innocent person if he started firing?

That's quite a bit of a stretch. It's not like the gun just starts firing and keeps on going until it's out of bullets and babies are dead in their strollers next to their bleeding mothers.

I'd be willing to bet that consideration was very far down on his list of reasons why he didn't shoot.

[Hoyt]

22. Let's see,

We have a man at the gas pump, a woman in another car, a thug at her door. If the man at the gas pump -- some distance away -- fired, do you think he might hit the woman, a gas pump, a station clerk, a baby in another car? Or is it possible the thug would shoot the women and maybe others.

If those that support toting in public think those considerations are far down on the list -- then that's a major problem with guns in public (whether legal or not).

[oneshooter]

28. What does "some distance away " consist of?

Is it 20ft? 20yds? 50yds? 100yds or more? Or at the next pump island? I train to hit my target, center of mass at ranges from 7ft to 50yds. I shoot 200-300rds a month in practice and shoot a IDPC match monthly, all using the same pistol/holster/mag carrier I use for CHL.

Again what does "some distance away" consist of?

Oneshoter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Hoyt]

33. Cracking me up. That's just it, you "trained" to hit a PAPER target.

Shoot, I was firing away at "targets" (paper not human) probably before you were born. But, that's not the same as shooting at a person with a woman right behind them and bystanders just about anywhere. I guess you've got a load that won't go through the thug too (at least on paper) if you are lucky enough to hit him. Folks who think they have it all figured out are why no one should be allowed to tote unless they are in a well regulated militia or law enforcement. Just my opinion, which is becoming firmer posting to some here.

[oneshooter]

35. I have been shot 3 times. I have been in firefights that were company size

I spent most of the last 20years in the shit holes of the world protecting my clients lives. I don't need a mall cop wannabe telling me that there is a difference between paper and flesh. I have lost more friends in little piss ant "wars" than you can possibly have. And your "opinion" counts as squat to me.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas


And you STILL haven't answered the question. Scared?

[Hoyt]

37. Rest my case.

You get ticked off too easily. What is your question that I haven't answered? Appreciate your service, but that has nothing to do with carrying here. That women that you might hit ain't collateral damage here.

[oneshooter]

41. "Again what does "some distance away" consist of?" n/t

[Hoyt]

45. 2 feet, 5 feet, 100 yards are all "some distance" in this situation.

Are you happy? You pull your gun in a moment of excitement, fire away at what you perceive is a thug standing in front of a woman. You miss, or you hit soft tissue and the woman takes the pass through, or a guy 150 yards away takes a stray -- then, it was too far to just start shooting away. Or you shoot yourself in the foot pulling your gun -- more than a handful of "trained" toters have done that.

Unlike the poster above, this guy at least had the sense not to fire. I don't think some of the other posters are showing that good judgment on this thread. Yet they walk out of the house and into Chuck-E-Cheese every day with a gun in their pants.

[oneshooter]

52. I do walk around every day with a gun in my pants, and a weapon on my side.

Pistol on unknown target.

Range
Backstop
Angle
Ammo
Ability
Will

Range for a precision shot is normally considered to be 20-30ft

Open area? Brick wall? Dirt? People? It is a major consideration.

If needed kneel and take a upward shot, more meat and bone penetration needed to pass through, Bullet is angled upward at a lower velocity if it exits.

There is new ammo now that will not penetrate completely. In the old days the 124gr HP in a 357Mag was as close as it got. Now with the new ammo over penetration is less likely, and much more energy is dumped in the perp.

With practice anybody can become a proficient shooter. Whether you can pull the trigger on another human is another matter. If you honestly feel that you CAN NOT do what is necessary, please leave your weapon at home, as you will not able to use it when needed.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

The first time is hard, and it gets no better with time. Believe me.

[PavePusher]

55. Why do you persist in the myth that armed Citizens will inevitabley blaze away...

thoughtlessly and nearly at random when the evidence does not support your assumption?

[Glassunion]

51. This "well regulated mailitia" you speak of. I don't think it means what you think it means.

[PavePusher]

56. Postal inspectors in squads and platoons?

Eeeeek! :wow: :rofl:

Sorry, still getting caffeinated... :evilgrin:

[AtheistCrusader]

60. Glaser Safety Slugs.

By the way, I train more than the average police officer does.

[PavePusher]

18. I beg your pardon...

"He probably had sense enough to know he'd just as likely hit an innocent person if he started firing."

Really? You have evidence to support that claim, right?

I'll go rebuild the Twin Towers while you dig that up....

[Hoyt]

21. Are you saying that most toters don't know when it's safe to fire away?

If so, we agree. And that is why it's dangerous for armed "citizens" to be walking around in public.

[PavePusher]

30. I was refering to your insinuation...

that the odds of hitting an innocent person were equal to the odds of hitting the criminal.

I assert that you can't find peer-reveiwed stats to back that up.

Don't be disingenuos, you don't wear it well.

[Hoyt]

34. "Peer reviewed" Give me a break, we are talking "cowboys" here, not science.

[PavePusher]

36. So, no evidence, just unfounded allegations. Got it.

Here, I'll do your homework for you. The stat you should be looking for is in the very last line:


http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgcon.html

"Should Permit Holders be Subject to the Same Training as Police Officers?

No. Of course permit holders should be knowledgeable and proficient in the many aspects of defensive gun use, however as Jeffrey Snyder says in FIGHTING BACK: Crime, Self-Defense, and the Right to Carry a Handgun ( http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-284es.html ):

"Permit holders need concern themselves with only one thing: protecting themselves from a sudden, violent assault that threatens life or grievous bodily injury. Rape, robbery, and attempted murder are not typically actions rife with ambiguity or subtlety, requiring special powers of observation, great book-learning, or a stint at the police academy to discern. When a man pulls a knife on a woman and says, 'You're coming with me,' her judgment that a crime is being committed is not likely to be in error."
"Police, by contrast, do not carry arms solely for the purpose of defending themselves, but also for the purpose of enforcing the law. They deliberately inject themselves into potentially dangerous and violent situations, responding to calls for assistance, investigating crimes, intervening in domestic violence, and making arrests."

The police have much wider duties and responsibilities than civilian concealed carry weapon (CCW) permit holders do. As a result, opposing CCW laws because police receive greater weapons training or requiring civilians to receive the same training as police officers is unwarranted. (Snyder's article also points-out that police mistakenly kill roughly 300 innocent victims per year versus around 30 per year by civilians.)"



So it seems the average Citizen is a tenth as likely to kill a bystander as the police. I'll take those odds.

P.S. You're welcome.

[Hoyt]

38. I disagree with your conclusion,

But in any case, we entrust the police to carry out the law on the streets. I don't think toter's permits really empower them to make those decisions. Apparently you missed that part of training.

[PavePusher]

39. Those who "tote"...

may legally defend themselves and others if an appropriate opportunity to do so exists.

And they legally do so far more often, and with far less collateral damage, than you ascribe.

The evidence has been presented to you. You have brought none in refutation. I think we're done here. Good day to you.

[Hoyt]

43. "Opportunity" -- is that how you view toting?

Yes we are done here. My point is too many toters view it as an "opportunity" to pull their weapon and apparently shoot. I think we'd be better letting folks who are not trying to play judge, jury, cowboy, defender, police etc., handle these situations.

[cowman]

46. Apparently

the majority of states disagree with you as they have loosened their conceal carry laws and who here has ever used carrying concealed as an opportunity to pull their weapon and start shooting, you are either mis-informed or a liar, which is it?

[Hoyt]

50. Neither. Read the poster's comments (#39) -- he/she used "opportunity".

I might have exaggerated things a bit. But it's also an exaggeration that folks need to be carrying guns into bars, churches, Chuck-E-Cheese, parks and other public places.

[PavePusher]

57. I know what you are doing.

You are implying that people are looking for an opportunity to shoot someone. That is not what I meant and I strongly suspect that you are fully cognizant of that.

You are projecting some kind of desire to shoot people where there is none.

You have been using insinuation, projection, assumption, assertion, and innuendo consistantly and deliberately.

If you can bring some facts and evidence to this conversation, I will gladly take it up with you again. Until then, peace.

[Bold Lib]

19. According to the police officer at the scene this is what he believes "could" have happened.

“If the witness hadn't intervened, that woman could have been killed or injured. The suspect might have taken her and her vehicle.”

Of course your opinion varies - that well seasoned experience of yours. Or is that clairvoyance?

I am thankful this person with the CCL was there to intervene to help.

[Hoyt]

42. Once again, my comment is directed at the poster who said why didn't he just shoot him.

I posted a reason the toter didn't shoot (and good on him). Then I went on to say that that's the problem with some toters, they want to shoot when they shouldn't. There are guys on here who think they are trained to squeeze off a shot in a charged situation (based upon some time on the range with paper targets), can hit a "thug" with a woman right behind them, etc. Bad way to walk out the door with a gun or two stuck down your pants in my opinion.

[cowman]

44. and you would be wrong

The majority of us are military vets with combat experience and also private security with extensive training. Don't stereotype us just because you have an aversion to concealed or open carry, and your bias is showing by saying bad way to walk out the door with a gun or two stuck in your pants, nobody here has ever claimed to carry a gun in their waistband, very dangerous.

[Hoyt]

47. I have a concern about people who think they are trained and justified to play . . . .

judge, jury, and police in these situations. Poster #1 asked why the toter didn't just shoot him. And that's the problem, too many folks are looking for an "opportunity". As I've said before, I can still break a 1911 down blindfolded, but I've got the sense to know that that doesn't prepare me for a civilian situation where laying down a barrage is not the way to handle things. "Security" training might give someone a better perspective. But the poster who asked why didn't he just fire away doesn't sound like they have that training, or would understand it.

[cowman]

48. OK

I will agree with you that you have to take in the situation to assess whether or not to shoot, but to say that too many folks are looking for the opportunity to pull and shoot is not exactly correct, I think what the poster was saying was why startle the goblin when, if safe to do so, just shoot the person, I think that they didn't mean to just start shooting without assessing the situation. I just don't get what your problem with concealed carry is, the police are 10 times more likely to shoot an innocent bystander than a CHL holder and most states are open to CCW laws and the predictions of blood flowing in the streets and shootouts over parking spaces by the gun control groups have turned out to be pure bullshit.

[Hoyt]

49. Finally, a CHL holder with some judgment.

I did say "some" and you seem to be an exception to those who think they are trained and ready to respond properly in every situation.

Not sure about the police being 10 times more likely to hit a bystander. Would have to see how those stats are calculated (per incident or just gross incidents). I suspect the police are involved in a lot more incidents than license holders (mainly because the odds of encountering an incident are not nearly as great as many license holders seem to fear).

[oneshooter]

53. Most police only shoot enough to qualify, some have to test twice to pass. n/t

[PavePusher]

58. I just gave you that stat yesterday.

See post #36.

Now you are being duplicitous. See post #57.

[friendly_iconoclast]

61. CHL holders have better judgement as a group than you're willing to admit

Those who have disagreed with you have on at least one instance provided you with actual statistics (with link to same).

You did not refute them, you stated your disagreement with their conclusions.


Those who advocate handgun carriage by civilians have in the past provided links to peer-reviewed journals, the FBI and
Department of Justice websites, and the State of Florida's website, which has many reviewable links (with downloadable
documents) concerning that states' 20+ year history of issuing concealed handgun permits. These links can show just how generally law abiding permit holders actually are.

Some DUers who have responded to you on this thread have long professional and military experience with handgun use that they have explained in detail. You, apparently, have none.

On the contrary, you have provided only a verbose declaration on the general stupidity of concealed handgun owners
which we are supposed to accept at face value. You have repeated proclaimed your knowledge of how the common- or garden- variety
CHL holder supposedly thinks, with neither a citation or link to back up what you say.

Pardon me if I refuse to take your self-styled, self-important 'expertise' seriously...

[friendly_iconoclast]

62. Kicked to note the departure of yet another self-anointed 'expert'

"My gun(s) are just fine, it's those people's we have to worry about..."

[Bold Lib]

63. Did someone get tombstoned?

[friendly_iconoclast]

64. Let's just say that factose intolerance got the better of a certain poster...

...aggravated by a preexisting case of citation impairment.

[jazzhound]

65. If we kept a running monthly log of every occurrence

of this phenomenon, the list would be a fairly long one.

(Inability to provide citation for BS claims)