Customer shoots armed robber in Wisconsin store

Jörmungandr · #1 by **Jörmungandr** » Feb 05, 2012 12:01 am

http://www.jsonline.com/multimedia/vide ... 1827729001

:popcorn:

Grimstad · #2 by **Grimstad** » Feb 05, 2012 12:09 am

OMG. An armed Muslim in Milwaukee. Why didn't he shoot the other customers?
/sarc

mcgruff · #3 by **mcgruff** » Feb 05, 2012 3:53 am

"People were safe" (because he used his gun)... fuck me. Some people live in a fantasy world.

Starting a gunfight in a busy shop could potentially have very serious consequences. The safest thing to do is not to challenge an armed robber who just wants to grab some cash and get the hell out of there. Is a small bag of money more important than people?

AlohaChris · #4 by **AlohaChris** » Feb 05, 2012 4:09 am

Dead perp and no innocents harmed, chalk one up for the good guys. :thumbup:

I'm shocked the responding police officers handled it as well as they did.

Jörmungandr · #5 by **Jörmungandr** » Feb 05, 2012 4:10 am

mcgruff wrote:
Starting a gunfight in a busy shop could potentially have very serious consequences.

Yes, it could. Conversely, not taking action could have serious consequences. Every situation is different, and trying to apply a universal rule to any potential incident is foolish.

The safest thing to do is not to challenge an armed robber who just wants to grab some cash and get the hell out of there.

It may be the safest thing to do. On the other hand, an armed robber who is increasingly irritable and nervous is potentially dangerous. If nobody who complied in an armed robbery had ever been killed, I might agree with you, but I think you'll find that's not the case.

Is a small bag of money more important than people?

No, it isn't. I doubt the shooter was concerned about the money when he took action.

Stormcrow · #6 by **Stormcrow** » Feb 05, 2012 4:10 am

Grimstad wrote:OMG. An armed Muslim in Milwaukee. Why didn't he shoot the other customers?
/sarc

Heroic private citizen saves lives with handgun? Evil Muslim shoots (probable) Christian in act of terrorism?

Somewhere in Hell, the Fox News supercomputer is grinding to a halt over this one.

AlohaChris · #7 by **AlohaChris** » Feb 05, 2012 4:12 am

Stormcrow wrote:Somewhere in Hell, the Fox News supercomputer is grinding to a halt over this one.

johnbrandt · #8 by **johnbrandt** » Feb 05, 2012 8:20 am

Dead criminal, live good guys...what's the problem? :thumbup:

Spearthrower · #9 by **Spearthrower** » Feb 05, 2012 8:25 am

Wild west.

Loren Michael · **#10** by **Loren Michael** » Feb 05, 2012 10:59 am

FUCK. YES.

AlohaChris · **#11** by **AlohaChris** » Feb 05, 2012 2:00 pm

Mmmm...Belt fed.

mrjonno · **#12** by **mrjonno** » Feb 05, 2012 3:16 pm

johnbrandt wrote:Dead criminal, live good guys...what's the problem?

Sorry I would prefer live good guy live criminal live(even if criminal escaped with loot)

AlohaChris · **#13** by **AlohaChris** » Feb 05, 2012 3:56 pm

mrjonno wrote:
johnbrandt wrote:Dead criminal, live good guys...what's the problem?

Sorry I would prefer live good guy live criminal (even if criminal escaped with loot)

I, to, but unfortunately things don't always end peacefully:

Surrounded by friends, family and supporters, James Koenig on Saturday pleaded for the safe return of his 18-year-old daughter Samantha, who Anchorage police say was abducted from her workplace at Common Grounds Espresso Wednesday evening.

Surveillance video shows Samantha taken from the scene by an armed man.
http://www.ktuu.com/news/ktuu-father-of-missing-barista-pleas-for-her-return-20120204,0,3037604.story

The so-called chrome-revolver bandit, named for the large silver revolver used during a multi-city robbery spree, was charged yesterday with mayhem and 36 other felonies for allegedly shooting a San Mateo pet store cashier he’d encountered in a previous holdup of the same business.

Prosecutors say Ricky Renee Sanders, 34, shot the worker deliberately during the brazen nighttime robbery of PetSmart on Oct. 8. The bullet severed his femoral artery.

[url]http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=227816&title=‘Chrome-revolver%20bandit’%20facing%20life[/url]

mrjonno · **#14** by **mrjonno** » Feb 05, 2012 5:19 pm

It's a numbers game, sure mr nasty criminal may kill you anyway but how more likely is someone (innocent) going to get killed if it turns into a gun fight in a shop

The_Metatron · **#15** by **The_Metatron** » Feb 05, 2012 5:29 pm

Loren Michael wrote:FUCK. YES.

That comic is hilarious on many levels.

willhud9 · **#16** by **willhud9** » Feb 05, 2012 5:30 pm

mrjonno wrote:It's a numbers game, sure mr nasty criminal may kill you anyway but how more likely is someone (innocent) going to get killed if it turns into a gun fight in a shop

A guy who has a ccw and is carrying his weapon on him more than likely knows how to use it and hit his intended target. To suggest a hollywoodized gun fight (rarely happens) in a store is fantasy.

The_Metatron · **#17** by **The_Metatron** » Feb 05, 2012 6:13 pm

willhud9 wrote:
mrjonno wrote:It's a numbers game, sure mr nasty criminal may kill you anyway but how more likely is someone (innocent) going to get killed if it turns into a gun fight in a shop

A guy who has a ccw and is carrying his weapon on him more than likely knows how to use it and hit his intended target. To suggest a hollywoodized gun fight (rarely happens) in a store is fantasy.

More likely than whom, Will?

The guy who qualified for a concealed weapon permit has demonstrated he has no criminal record. The training requirements in Wisconsin are minimal. The training requirements do not include combat scenarios.

It's a far cry from the ability to carry and fire a weapon safely to being able to engage an opponent in a shootout in a public place. A far cry indeed. It's one thing to poke holes in a target, or even a pop-up target in a practical shooting course. It's yet another to do so when the target is shooting back.

This particular scenario seemed to have turned out how we would judge to be acceptable. Just because we like the idea of the lone gunman meting out justice. It'd be educational to learn the shooter's name and find out how much this event cost him five years from now. His legal fees are not going to be cheap.

Jörmungandr · **#18** by **Jörmungandr** » Feb 05, 2012 6:17 pm

mrjonno wrote:It's a numbers game, sure mr nasty criminal may kill you anyway but how more likely is someone (innocent) going to get killed if it turns into a gun fight in a shop

That's a determination that one can't really make without being in the particular situation for themselves. Personally, I like having the option to defend myself with lethal force if the situation calls for it, in addition to the option of letting the guy run off with the money, should my individual assessment of the situation determine that to be the safest resolution to the situation. Having a gun doesn't mean I'm going to automatically shoot an armed robber if I come across one, it just means that I have that option available if I believe that not taking action is more dangerous.

Jörmungandr · **#19** by **Jörmungandr** » Feb 05, 2012 6:22 pm

The_Metatron wrote:
More likely than whom, Will?

More likely than most criminals, who likely don't take their illegal weapons to the range very often to get in some practice.

The guy who qualified for a concealed weapon permit has demonstrated he has no criminal record. The training requirements in Wisconsin are minimal. The training requirements do not include combat scenarios.

It's a far cry from the ability to carry and fire a weapon safely to being able to engage an opponent in a shootout in a public place. A far cry indeed. It's one thing to poke holes in a target, or even a pop-up target in a practical shooting course. It's yet another to do so when the target is shooting back.

While I believe that people who have a concealed carry permit SHOULD undertake as much training as is reasonably possible for them, to ensure their competence with their weapon, most self-defense shooting situations occur at a relatively close range where point-shooting is sufficient, and as such I wouldn't expect it to be necessary for the most part. At any rate, in this particular incident, it's clear that the shooter was competent enough to hit his target.

This particular scenario seemed to have turned out how we would judge to be acceptable. Just because we like the idea of the lone gunman meting out justice. It'd be educational to learn the shooter's name and find out how much this event cost him five years from now. His legal fees are not going to be cheap.

Oh, I agree. The justice system needs serious reform in regards to civil suits stemming from lawful use of force. :thumbup:

AlohaChris · **#20** by **AlohaChris** » Feb 05, 2012 6:27 pm

willhud9 wrote:
mrjonno wrote:It's a numbers game, sure mr nasty criminal may kill you anyway but how more likely is someone (innocent) going to get killed if it turns into a gun fight in a shop

A guy who has a ccw and is carrying his weapon on him more than likely knows how to use it and hit his intended target. To suggest a hollywoodized gun fight (rarely happens) in a store is fantasy.

In this specific instance, there was no gunfight. The perp had the ability and opportunity to use deadly force placing all present in life-threatening jeopardy. The CCW took him by surprise, from concealment, with well placed shots to COM effectively neutralizing the threat.

The CCW stated that he had trained with his firearm and specifically waited until the perp was occupied (shoving a shotgun into the clerks neck) and he had a clear line of fire before decisively engaging the threat.

Not exactly the 'spray & pray' everyone harps about. He handled it as well as any off-duty cop might have, possibly better.