Armed Citizen: Oklahoma Pharmacist Defends Employees from Robbers

Status
Not open for further replies.
For what its worth,I was taught in my police academy class, ( thirty five years ago ), in a gun fight, after you downed the perp with a shot, you empty your sidearm into him.

I call BS...tell us what Department would train that way
Click to expand...
[/I
Click to expand...
]

No BS...It was a major upstate New York Police Dept......like I said...it's a gun fight...over in seconds...you make sure that you or your partner or inocent bystanders don't get hurt. You can pontificate all you like about what you would do, or what should have been done, but unless you have been there and took part in the gun fight.....its just a lot of hot air on your part.......talk to me again after you have ..:rolleyes:
 
I see a lot of the what ifs of the "execution-no-shoot" are related to where the BG's gun was while trying to stand back up again.
Take this fictional scenario: Unarmed BG, who is 16 but looks like a linebacker (as some do) walks towards a crippled man yelling "im going to kill you!" It is my understanding that, if the physically disabled man shoots, it would be a good shot. Much like a women shooting an unarmed but overpowering attacker.
If this is indeed the case, the location of the sidearm becomes irrelevant. (Note my assumption of the 16 year old being physically dominant)

What does become relevant was the state of the BG and if he indeed posed a threat. Im inclined to think that a guy who would walk into a store, yell "you're dead!" and start shooting without provocation should be considered extremely dangerous, and would almost be justification enough to "empty the magazine" when he's trying to get back up.

I remember a while back seeing a security video on here where a security guard at a gas station or some such engaged two BGs who came in guns blazing (it was somewhere in Asia I beleive). He shot one BG, and ran after the second, but after running past the one downed BG, he was shot and killed. The assumption was the downed BG was no longer a threat, and it killed him.
Not sure if that's totally relevant, but you can see the parallel to this case.
 
No BS...It was a major upstate New York Police Dept.
Click to expand...
Then your agency was teaching you BS that was in conflict with the law, not to mention bad tactics. Even 35 years ago excessive force was frowned upon, and emptying your gun into a downed suspect would get you jail time. Even under the fleeing felon doctrine, once the suspect was down and out of the fight you had to quit trying to kill him.
 
No BS...It was a major upstate New York Police Dept.
Click to expand...

Which one. Put up or shut up:cool:

Then your agency was teaching you BS that was in conflict with the law, not to mention bad tactics. Even 35 years ago excessive force was frowned upon, and emptying your gun into a downed suspect would get you jail time. Even under the fleeing felon doctrine, once the suspect was down and out of the fight you had to quit trying to kill him.
Click to expand...

+1, assuming it even happened

WildnowayAlaska ™
 
I am late chiming in here but I wanted to add my two cents.

Not being handicapped myself, I am not really in a good position to judge this man's actions.

I fully agree with defending yourself and others but I did take issue with the part of the story where he "emptied" his .380 into the assailants chest. I would really want to know what condition the assailant was in as he returned to his feet and if he was armed and how he was bringing said arms to bear. If the assailant was not presenting any further danger (IE: unarmed or unable to use firearm) I would consider this a massive over-reaction and possibly a bad shoot. I say possibly because once bullets have started to fly I find it easier to forgive over-reactions later on in the conflict.

Also, as I said before, I am not handicapped. In fact I am quite capable physically and I tend to judge such scenarios based on my own personal mindset. That mindset is one of someone more than capable of defending themselves in a scuffle. My entire perception might be different if I was not capable of such actions. I might find it much more necessary to act sooner and more decisively than I do now if I knew I would not be able to cope with a physical assualt.

PS: They have such a great security system...is there a video to back up this version of the story? I might have missed it reading the thread.
 
walking the talk

First of all, if you weren't there, didn't have a dog in a fight then none of us have any say in this.

Second, If you ain't been in a gun fight and survived you have no idea what your talking about.

The gents biggest misque was saying anything at all until he got a Lawyer, keeping your mouth shut will always improve the odds in your favor.

If you have been or are a cop then you know that about 90% of BG's in the joint are there because they opened their mouths, they talked to somebody, the cops, the girl friend that they forgot about smacking around the week before.

I'm a good guy, I would never say one word to a LEO without first talking to my Lawyer, and I am a former LEO .

G. Gordon Liddy as I recall was the only Watergater to never say a word, nada, nothing to anybody. When asked in an interview if he had ever killed anybody he replied, The Statute of Limitations never end for some things.

This man did what he had too, I'm sure he was scared to death, I'm sure he really has very little memory of the events and that should be all he says, I don't recall, I was fighting for my life and the ladies who work for me.

My last thought is this, Never shoot a BG until "your" convinced he's dead, shot him until "HE's" convinced he's dead.

Then shut up!!
 
That mindset is one of someone more than capable of defending themselves in a scuffle. My entire perception might be different if I was not capable of such actions. I might find it much more necessary to act sooner and more decisively than I do now if I knew I would not be able to cope with a physical assualt.
Click to expand...
It does change one's perception. I've become handicapped to a certain degree, and whle it does not effect my normal activities too much it does strictly prohibit high levels of exertion or anything that would cause the body to heat up much beyond normal. Because of that my chosen responses to a number of situations have changed, some quite radically. There are some scenarios now where I would go to deadly force, for example, when previously I might have looked at it as a good chance for a workout and to practice some techniques.
 
Number one
• If some Dumb@SS of Olympian proportions goes into a liquor store, bank or pharmacy with intent to rob it and gets his head blown off, thats his OWN STUPIDITY IN ACTION and the 'tards relatives need to realize that. Had he not tried to hold the place up, he wouldn't be laying in the ground with a hole in his head now would he?

• This stuff happens all the time. Two years ago some pill zombie went into a pharmacy in Stollings WV and tried to stick it up to get pills. Unfortunately for him he ate the pills and when he passed out the victims disarmed him and went medieval on his @$$. He looked like he went 12 rounds with Mike Tyson AND George Foreman in his mug shot.

• Sometimes you don't even have to have a gun to foil a felon but it helps...
Once in my town a nutjob dressed like a Ninja tried to rob a Captain D's restaurant and bystanders chased him down for the cops...

Here is the latest such incident from my county by the way...

Local man catches burglary suspect for police

BRUNO — Some fast thinking and courageous action on behalf of a local man helped the West Virginia State Police capture an accused burglar who had warrants out on him for other theft related charges.
According to police, on May 9, Jack L. White of Bruno captured Richard L. Toler and detained him for the WVSP after a burglary attempt in his neighborhood. Toler had a warrant out for his arrest already for credit card fraud and conspiracy charges.
Toler, 40, of Bruno, was then arrested by West Virginia State Police Trooper J.E. Williams for burglary, conspiracy and fraudulent use of a credit card on May 9.
According to police reports, Trooper Williams responded to a burglary complaint from the landlord of the residence belonging to the victims.
"The landlord advised that he saw the defendant leaving the victim's residence," the report states. "The landlord had (Toler) detained until this officer's arrival. The landlord advised that (Toler) was carrying a folded blanket containing one X-Box game console, 12 X-Box games and one controller. The landlord advised that the back door of the residence had been shattered and forcibly entered. This officer also obtained a written statement from the defendant verifying the said events. Total value of loss and recovery was approximately $460."
A different criminal complaint states that on Sept. 21, 2008, Toler and two women allegedly conspired to fraudulently use a Walmart credit card belonging to a victim in order to make three separate purchases within a one-hour time frame.
The trio reportedly purchased more than $900 worth of merchandise with the stolen card.
He was booked at the regional jail at 12:30 p.m.
 
No BS...It was a major upstate New York Police Dept
Click to expand...

That's odd, I just got back from next door and talked with a 23 year veteran of a major upstate police dept...and his words were not family friendly on this forum, but the response was contrary to your claim.

Name the department and the person that trained recruits in the manner that you claim.
 
one armed robber who fired shots died.

one armed robber lived.

the victim (in the store) lived (but was shot) and the other three employees lived.

so after an armed robbery, 5 out of 6 people lived and the one who did not
was the criminal.

Looks to me like the shooting victim here who stood his ground saved 4 lives by what he did.

could he have expressed some thoughts differently, probably.

he did express remorse for the death and it is most likely genuine.

but he and the others are alive.

He might be judged by 12 but he will NOT be carried by six.

as some here always say.
 
Then your agency was teaching you BS that was in conflict with the law, not to mention bad tactics. Even 35 years ago excessive force was frowned upon, and emptying your gun into a downed suspect would get you jail time. Even under the fleeing felon doctrine, once the suspect was down and out of the fight you had to quit trying to kill him.

Its not BS, and it was not bad tactics...and it was not in conflict with the law...I'm not talking about shooting a perp and then strolling over to him and emptying a gun into him....I'm talking about an intense incident that takes just seconds...just seconds...the BG goes down and keep firing...thats what we were taught, and it saved lives. I'm not interested in who talked to the cop down the street....thats the way it was. Now who here has ever been in a gun battle...Who...I was in in two in my thirty five year career..scared the hell out of me both times.... oh and about bad tactics...how many gun fights have you been in? It seems to me that people on this thread have the luxury of critiquing events after the fact with very few facts....you guys are boring me. and I really don't give a rats patoot if you believe me or not.
 
Wild I disagree with your whole stance on this thread. And I can believe that you shoot after a guy drops. If you won't, then that is your risk. You can't know till you are there, and you can't say its wrong, either. Maybe its politically incorrect, but I personally don't care if I am politically incorrect as long as I am not dead. Cause who cares if you were polite if your dead?
Ability, Opportunity, Intent BG had all 3. Even when getting back up
 
The only definitive tactics judgment that I think can be made, knowing what little we know, is "Don't carry a .380." (Where's Ayoob with his proscription against mouseguns?)

As far as the morality of the supplemental shooting, we don't know for sure, but I think it's entirely appropriate to give the benefit of the doubt to the party who didn't decide to be an armed robber.
 
Pretty much every state's laws on self defense say once the threat is over, then you must stop.

Now as for shooting after they fall, well that depends on if they keep fighting once on the ground. If you feel they are still a threat, then you take the appropriate action.

But!!!!! I caution everyone here, whatever you do, it will be brought up in court and a jury (either grand or trial) will decide if your actions were justified. And in very liberal states, shooting a prone person does not sound very good. In fact even in Texas it does not look so good.

It's going to be up to your lawyer on getting the jury to see it your way.

Lots of luck.
 
I find it interesting and rather sad that so many in this thread insinuate/assume that the pharmacist did not have justification to take the second set of shots, as if they witnessed this event. None of us were there, and none of us have any right to make such judgments, based as they are entirely on personal prejudice and unwarranted speculation.

It's also sad that the same folks seem to have a rather expansive view of the rights of the armed robber/attempted murderer and an extremely narrow view of the rights of the innocent pharmacist to defend himself and his coworkers.
 
Where did get lost?

Where did I lose my country? How can a person plan a robbery and use a weapon and still have rights? Who are these people who defend the rights of a human that thought this out and planed to use a weapon to rob and maybe kill another human ? Am I wrong to think that if you come into my home or place of work and try to rob or kill me that I have the right to kill you? I must say I do not know what I would do until it happens? But I think???? I would keep pulling the trigger until he stops moving?
 
csmsss buck9
+1 to the both of you. criminals don't have rights even though its politically correct to say they do, not even sure that is right in itself.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/dec/12/ukcrime.immigrationpolicy
Goldsmith, by contrast, warns against ignoring burglars' rights: 'We must protect victims and law-abiding citizens. But we have to recognise that others have some rights as well. They don't lose all rights because they're engaged in criminal conduct.'

This is what England is today. This is not what America is. Kid deserved to die. I would bet all my possessions he would have tried another burglary again if he got out of that one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top