Interesting Robbery Shootout with IPSC Grandmaster

Status
Not open for further replies.
That's one school not to go to !! :rolleyes:

If it was Jim Cirillo it would have been a bit different .

Shooting BGs after the fact makes Mr Grandmaster :( an agressor not a defender . Maybe a high risk jewelry store owner should carry more than 5 shots.
 
Big mistake trying to be the hero. Hopefully he and his family do not become targets of gang related retaliation as a result of this.
Click to expand...

This is a very good point sirsloop. I honestly believe that his act was not needed for the current situation at all. Not only that but the bad guys got away. Leaving a retaliation towards him or his family a possibility. :eek: Those of you that think those things don't happen are wrong. I live in a good neighborhood, and about a month ago less than a mile from my house there was a shooting. The guy at the house was a witness for an upcoming case. The gang decided to send him a message using 25 rounds through his living room wall.
 
Here is another story with some more details on the shooting:
http://www.marconews.com/news/2011/feb/09/Sandy-Thalheimer-jewelers-robbery-shoot-east-coast/

Apparently, Thalheimer fired only one shot in the initial confrontation after the crash, after one of the people exiting the sedan pointed a gun at him. After he fired, that guy ran and somebody by one of the extra vehicles began firing at Thalheimer - he emptied his remaining shots at that person.

Looks like a lot of the details are still murky and several of the reported "facts" may be more accurately characterized as speculation and/or eyewitness statements.
 
In this instance I have to wonder if a bigger magazine would have been of any value, if not a detriment. Conversely after watching a couple of cops shoot (aka miss big time) at the range, I'm wondering if street officers shouldn't have to have high range scores to carry. It reminded me of the Detroit shootout a couple of years ago where officers fired 40 rounds and missed the BG totally.
 
The good thing is the robbers retreated from the guy instead of actually looking at what he was shooting.

They were already trying to get away from the area and the closing-"they probably thought" police.

I'm would'nt do it but this guy stood up and scared the living Jesus out of these guys.

I'm going to say bad idea but good outcome.

Yes,the bad guys are still lose but now they know-people are going to come out of the woodworks at the strangest times to screw up their plans.

Mr.Hero definitely needs to rearm with a semi auto with more rounds and extra clips and be ready if these guys come back for revenge.

I hope the bad guys get arrested or that some of them simply say "blank this" the next time one of their idiot friends say,"Let's go rob somebody."
 
This just provides more evidence that you never know what 'your gunfight, if it comes' will entail.

I bet he was very happy he had a 5-shooter and no reloads :rolleyes:
 
From the tone of the police quote, it doesn't sound like they are very interested in charging him with a crime. His decisions may not have been the best but they were likely not criminal. He let two suspects run away without firing upon them and did not fire until the third brandished a weapon. No one knows what they will do in a situation until you are there. It's easy to pick it apart hours or days after the fact. No one's reactions are the same and a given person will react differently on different days depending on a variety of factors.

I'm just saying don't tear the man down too much, YOU WEREN'T THERE!
 
And so a IPSC Grandmaster, instead of carrying the gun he used to make that 'Grandmaster' used a 5 shooter and apparently got no hits.

Well that alone is a lesson to learn!

If you shoot IDPA or IPSC, use the same gun you carry. Sure you won't make Grandmaster but you will become very good with your carry gun!

Deaf
 
Some thoughts.

Sitting at home ( or a safe jury box ) is way different than being dropped in to a situation unannounced.

If robbers don't encounter resistance they will become even bolder knowing the victims won't put up a fight.

One must have a plan beyond ramming the robbers car.

When the lookout started firing, there was really no way for Thalheimer to know where the rounds were coming from and he probably just started firing in the general direction of the noise.

The robbers would be just as likely to return and rob again if Thalheimer let them go as they are to retaliate when he intervened.

Being charged for assault for ramming the robbers car? I don't think so, I'm not going to live my life giving robbers special privledges while a victim standing their ground is punished.
 
Apparently, Thalheimer fired only one shot in the initial confrontation after the crash, after one of the people exiting the sedan pointed a gun at him. After he fired, that guy ran and somebody by one of the extra vehicles began firing at Thalheimer - he emptied his remaining shots at that person.
Click to expand...
Had an LEO vehicle been driving by, and the officers had not yet received the call about the robbery (maybe not the right department, maybe even feds) and had they seen the crazy red-neck (not what I think of him but very possibly what police may have thought) crash into the other guys' car, then jump out and start shooting, what could the result have been? It could have been they get out of their car and start shooting at Thalheimer and he turns and shoots the 4 remaining shots in his gun at the LEOs and kills one of them or is killed himself. He is pretty darned lucky that the second car had bad guys in it and not cops who may have thought he was the bad guy.

His reactions - and mind you he is quoted as saying he just reacted - are the sign of a person with very poor training in defensive shooting and tactical shooting or a sign of maybe none at all. What did he say? He just looked at the front sight and concentrated on the trigger. Did he ever actually assess the situation, give it a moment's thought, then act instead of react. It does not sound like it. Had he done so he would not have done any of what he did except maybe follow them to give the police a description. He should stick to playing games or maybe better yet, he should get himself some training in defensive tactics.

I will be quite surprised if he is not charged with a felony or at least a misdemeanor charge for reckless endangerment or something along those lines.

All the best,
Glenn B
 
Just an FYI. If I read this all correctly, he fired at the lookout car across the street which, according to Google Earth, is about 35 yards at its closest to where he rammed the car.
 
In most states where concealed carry is authorized, a civilian - and I'm assuming that Sandy is a civilian - can only lawfully use deadly force when they or a third party are in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

But when you take the fight to the bad guys by ramming their vehicle, you lose or reduce the protection of 'self defense' as an active defense.

As others have noted, at the time Sandy rammed their vehicle the BGs were retreating - no one was in imminent danger of death. Deadly force would not have been authorized, and ramming someone with your vehicle is arguably as potentially deadly as shooting at them.

AFAIC it's a textbook case of how to put yourself in a position to have all sorts of charges and liability laid on you.
 
Listen to you guys...the man tried to thwart a robbery of HIS property, which then escalated into a situation that farced him to use his weapon. Why is it so acceptable when a police officer dumps 3 magazines into a perp with only a 10% hit rate, but all of the sudden when a civilian shoots 5 rounds to protect his life, he is a fool for putting bystanders in danger.

All the people saying he should have called the police, I am sure he did...but as is said, when seconds count, police are only minutes away. I someone takes your wallet from a counter at a tacobell and walks off, do you just call the police and wait, or do you confront the man and retrive your property...

I dont give a rats patoot if that jewelry would all be replaced for free (which I guarantee it was not). God bless the man for risking his own life if even to show the BG that crime will not always be so easy. I hope I would have the intestinal fortitude to do the same thing in his shoes.
 
To a degree, flyboy, I sympathize with your point of view. Continuing down the road of "no sweat, the insurance will handle it" can have some very disheartening results. Since the first of the year, I've responded to five robberies/break-ins in the Memphis area. Each time, without fail, the business owners give me the whole spill about they aren't worried since they have insurance. Well, here is the interesting twist. Three of those calls were to the same property. Now, that business owner is begging for police to step up activity in his area because he can't afford another insurance premium increase. He says if that happens he'll be out of business by the year's end.

Being too laissez-faire about being robbed can have the unwanted consequence of emboldening the criminals. To them it becomes a win-win situation. You get replacement product. They get free product. Now, your business is a criminal cash cow.

I'm not advocating ramming robbers with your vehicle, by any means. But you can't expect crime to go down if there isn't some real threat of harm to the criminal. If police are on the scene, sure, that is exactly what they are paid to provide. But, in a fast snatch-and-grab, you have to decide for yourself what is worth it. This man sent a clear message that robbing THIS store will get you run down by a car. At the same time, he put himself at risk of harm, prosecution, or even further violence. But, he took that risk himself, and he'll have to live with any consequences or benefits. When/if it's your call, decide quickly what you can live with.
 
Although I have stated earlier that the individual did not need to do what he did due to the situation. I do agree with flyboy on not letting yourselves fall victim by constantly relying on the police who are minutes away. But where do you draw that line? Where and when do you say okay, it doesn't seem as though anybody is going to die tonight, but this type of incident just keeps happening until somebody does soemthing about it? I read a story awhile back about a city in California that has insane crime rates all because the people there believe it is not their job to stick up for themselves. They also believed that the criminals are only doing what they are doing because society has already dealt them a bad hand, and therefore they think the BG is the victim.
 
prison

if a bad guy ended up dead, he might go to prison, if wounded, he would be sued and lose (probably).
took my lovely wife to sherrif dept basic course, "if someone is running out of your house with your DVD player an you shoot him (in the back) you will go to prison."
A few more quotes of interest:

every bullet has a Lawyer attached to it

laser grips are a gimmick (opinion), defensive scenario=point shooting

open carry (Alabama) your asking for trouble, AND, you are the first target for BG, immediate threat. besides, you have to WALK everywhere you go, not even horseback or bicycles are allowed.
 
As I predicted we are starting to see some chestpounding about Damn the Consequences - start a risky gun fight for the greater good. Even when lives where no longer directly at risk. He could have followed the get away car while phoning the law.

The blazing shoot out is fun for gun boys but it's not really tactics that are reasonable. Do we have anymore to is actually analytic.

I assume the blazing gun fight crowd if they had shot an innocent would please guilty to the charges brought against them and not fight the civil court suit - just hand over their assets. If you don't say that - then you are kind of spouting hot air.

Also, the point about police arriving on the seen and shooting YOU is well taken. It happens to undercover cops and almost happened to some commando civilians at times.
 
I've been reading the replies here, Glenn, and I have to respectfully disagree. I've seen very little "chest-pounding" from the responders. Flyboyjake's response has been the most impassioned thus far (at least to me), and it seems to be more an outward expression of frustration that we, the law-abiding citizens, are supposed to just be good little victims and watch our assailants make off easy with the things we work an honest job for. In Flyboy's defense, I think even he can admit this man's gun fight could, and should, have been avoided. I think he just empathizing.

It is understandable. My own co-worker, an Iraq vet, expressed the same kind of frustration. They were instructed not to fire on unarmed people. Insurgent snipers would then load one bullet in a rifle, try to snipe a soldier, throw the gun, and walk away. Our guys could not pursue or return fire. At a certain point, that frustration was so great that they said to hell with our orders and shot the cowards anyway. They decided it was worth risking disciplinary action. I kind of understand how we, as a society, could grow weary of not acting and being threatened by the very law we were thoughtful enough to follow if we should stick up for our own welfare. I would not have done what this man did nor advocate for it. But, I certainly understand the frustration of a citizen wanting to stand up and say, "Not this time."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top