The only one killed or injured in the attempted robbery was the bad guy. Apparently the "reckless gun toting" armed citizen did a pretty darned good job of killing the would be robber without harming any innocent bystanders in the process. I say pin a medal on him
That’s good, isn’t it?
The NRA has been telling us for years that the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is for a good guy with a gun to shoot him. And that is exactly what happened here…
Except it turns out the “robber” did not have a gun. It was a toy gun, or paint ball gun. But I don’t want to hear anyone blame the carry holder. It’s true that police are trained to make the real v toy determination before opening fire but carry holders never get that kind of training. So it’s all good except
Turns out the robber was a former store employee who knew the owner well. He came in wearing a Halloween mask and apparently made no effort to disguise his voice. So we don’t know for sure if this was a robbery at all, or a Halloween prank. But you can’t blame the carry holder – he didn’t know that. So I still say it’s all good except
The carry holder did not give a warning – “drop your gun”- or shoot to wound according to the news reports so far. He just shot the guy multiple times. Nor was there any indication that the robber would actually shoot anyone. But I don’t want to hear it- what you guys are missing is that carry holders aren’t trained to take these steps like policemen.
And the robber had a record. True, he seems to have turned his life around in recent years, but I say once a bad guy always a bad guy. But to avoid any appearance of bias here, I will modify the headline to match the facts:
Concealed carry permit holder prevents what may have been a robbery on Halloween by fatally shooting without warning a masked unarmed possible robber
That’s good, isn’t it
That's taught about as often as cowboys are taught to shoot the guns out of the bad guys hand.
and of course pointing a gun at someone and demanding money is "no indication" that the would be robber was actually going to shoot anybody, we all know what humanitarians armed robbers tend to be.
I don't see that this armed citizen took any action that a trained police officer would have taken. Anyone who takes the time to yell "drop your gun" when the other person has a gun already pointed at you is most likely going to be the one carted off in a body bag.
Nice try at spinning the story with half truths and innuendo, but your own linked article contradicts most of the so called "points" you are trying to make.
No one, not police, not anyone is ever taught to shoot to wound. Maybe you're simply a fan of cowboy movies?
Otherwise, does your posting indicate you'll now be making efforts to make future posts about other citizens that have successfully defended themselves and thwarted criminals with their personal firearms. I won't hold my breath.
Lastly, regarding your unsound claims that police are trained so these types of things do not happen:
http://www.rt.com/usa/171272-california-cop-killing-toy-gun/
There's plenty of other example
Thanks for the correction. Good pick up by you.
The “shoot to wound” was part of the lament of a family member. When I concluded my paragraph by referring to “steps the police were trained to take,” I did not think this part through very well. But we need not burden the family member with my wretched prose bc he has a legitimate point. If the shooter did not have a reasonable belief that the use of deadly force was necessary – as seems apparent from the Post article- then the shooter should have attempted to wound the unarmed Halloween prankster rather than aim for his chest.
Alas, I think you are equally in error with your point about toy guns. As far as the Post report tells us, this was not a split second need to shoot situation, as in your example. The gun was never pointed at the carry holder and the victim was directing a store employee to the back of the store where the money was at the time the carry holder shot. So there was no basis for either the carry holder, or a police officer, to use lethal force at this point.
And given that no one was in immediate danger, the carry holder should have investigated whether the gun was a toy or not. A police officer is trained to assume a gun pointed at him is real but is also trained that toy guns are required by federal law to have a blaze orange plug in the barrel. A carry holder probably would not know that, although I cannot speak to the training you get in Illinois for a permit. Hence I think I was correct when I said police are trained to make the toy v real gun distinction where as here neither they or a third person is in immediate danger.
The shooting has been referred to the DA for review. He will have all the facts. I would send this kind of case to the grand jury myself but in the meantime the carry holder has to sweat it out
a toy gun has little or nothing to do with things.
You should know better than to simply accept Mari's word for any of this. Yes the DA is going to take a look at this, but they have already said that "charges are unlikely"
We only have Mari's word about the impending danger, and the Monday morning quarterbacking about the gun not being real. Even Mari's own link said the gun was "realistic looking" realistic enough that he would have gotten away with robbery if not for the "gun toting" armed customer who for all we know was protecting his own money as he was conducting a "financial transaction" when the would be robber pulled a gun on both customers and employees alike.
So far nobody, nobody but Mari and a couple of relatives of the would be robber are claiming that this is anything but a justified shooting.
Oh, it makes a big difference and probably is determinative of the charge
If it turns out that this really was a toy gun and that the orange barrel was visible to the carry holder, then he is at risk of being charged with negligent homicide/manslaughter, or whatever the Illinois charge would be for a death caused by criminal negligence. And even if not charged criminally, the carry holder –if he has any money- will likely be sued for wrongful death on grounds he knew, or should have known, the gun was a toy.
The broader principle, of course, is this- police get hours of training to deal with shoot / don’t shoot situations. This is probably the most difficult decision an officer ever has to make in the field. Carry holders do not get this training. Yet the NRA advocates that they intervene in shoot Ddon’t shoot situations anyway.
Regardless of how this particular case turns out, this is a recipe for disaster. It is inevitable that there will be many unjustified shootings by these untrained gun bearers. And these tragedies will only increase as carry laws become more common and more expansive.
https://www.google.com/search?q=image+of+toy+gun&biw=1896&bih=1242&tbm=isch&imgil=M5HV6DfoPejteM%253A%253BP1FfjgMZoJDCVM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.dreamstime.com%25252Fstock-photography-toys-green-plastic-gun-image29222&source=iu&pf=m&fir=M5HV6DfoPejteM%253A%252CP1FfjgMZoJDCVM%252C_&usg=__fGe6sgXdLc2wuiWYp86CHSmjfaA%3
and the evidence simply does not support your claims. Are you so desperate for a "win" that you are trying to create crimes by licensed, legitimate gun owners where no crime exists?
Surely you are above that kind of behavior, aren't you?
Keep posting more of the justifiable shootings and the accidents show you will demonstrate that the greater good has been served.