Interesting Robbery Shootout with IPSC Grandmaster

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think everybody can sympathize with the situation and wants to see the bad guys get their comeuppance; but I think the question here is what is the best way to do that?

We have the benefit of hindsight and a great deal of time to work out a solution. Mr. Thalheimer didn't have those, so it can be easy to see a search for a better solution as criticism of his actions; but I think even Mr. Thalheimer would agree the outcome here wasn't what he was looking for.

The bad guys got away, around 10+ rounds were flying around a strip mall, the jewelry is gone and Mr. Thalheimer's truck is damaged. That doesn't seem like the kind of outcome worth risking your life over. So what tactics would have produced a better outcome? What could have been done to reduce the risk Mr. Thalheimer faced but still improve the outcome?
 
Bartholomew Roberts said:
I think everybody can sympathize with the situation and wants to see the bad guys get their comeuppance; but I think the question here is what is the best way to do that?
Click to expand...


Exactly. Who says that starting a gun fight is the only way, or even remotely close to the best way, to see the badguys "pay the price". The only reason it could be the best way, the only reason, is if we believe that these people should die for being thieves.

The stuff they stole is no excuse for trying to kill them. Stuff is replaceable. That's why business owners have insurance. I guarantee the $500 deductible is cheaper than a retainer for a defense lawyer.

Firearms are for defense of life, not property.
 
Agreed. The problem with determining any tactic is that you have to do it assuming you don't know the lookout car is there. Trying to follow the getaway car might get you run or gunned off the road by the ones you didn't know about. With that in mind, I believe the best solution here is, one, a high quality camera system and, two, good observation of the license, car, and robbers. I think we can all agree that any attempt to act on the first car would undoubtedly provoke the other.
 
Peetza, merchants build their livelihood on that "stuff," and that deductible gets significantly higher than 500 dollars. To them, and their employees, it is what sustains them. It is not unreasonable to want to protect that. Personally, I wouldn't, but I'm in the business of criminal justice, not stuff.
 
When tshtf don't we all default to the level of our training?

As an LEO, I've found myself running into a situation to get the bg, and only later examined how I put myself in danger.

As someone who has been in IDPA for some time, I can only imagine that the default level of a GM IPSC shooter is to engage the target. At that level it must be second nature.

Not saying it's right, but training has this effect. I believe it's also personality. Some run to the fight, some don't.

Best,

-Coop
 
micahweeks said:
Peetza, merchants build their livelihood on that "stuff," and that deductible gets significantly higher than 500 dollars. To them, and their employees, it is what sustains them. It is not unreasonable to want to protect that. Personally, I wouldn't, but I'm in the business of criminal justice, not stuff.
Click to expand...

I am a business owner. I would not use deadly force to defend or recover property and would be extremely angry with anyone who tried to do so on my behalf.


Coop de Ville said:
When tshtf don't we all default to the level of our training?

As an LEO, I've found myself running into a situation to get the bg, and only later examined how I put myself in danger.

As someone who has been in IDPA for some time, I can only imagine that the default level of a GM IPSC shooter is to engage the target. At that level it must be second nature.
Click to expand...

You've got a point there for police officers but I don't think it's reasonable to extrapolate this guys training to this situation. I mean, he shoots IPSC. Unless the jewelry was stolen by metal gong targets, I don't see how it applies. That's like saying that I would throw sauce and cheese at robbers because I make pizza all day.
 
When folks start posting 'patoot' , then TLF mods must rope in the conversation.

The point about defaulting to being a IPSC master is interesting. It might be used as an example why one needs to train in realistic scenarios and why competitors should realize it is a big game.

Your automatic, preconscious reflexes shouldn't make you act stupidly. One can train those to be more sensible - as the critical incidnet training literature shows.

Last, I really don't care about paens of frustration. That's not T and T is about. It is about realism.

As far as saying it is a personality issue - that also implies the 'cowardice' line I cautioned about before. The Charge of the Light Brigade may be honorable but you win wars by using your head also.
 
the BGs rolled the dice and got a little something they weren't expecting. They were lucky that time. that was a real situation that played out in a different way than expected as they do oftentimes. actions will create reactions whether correct or not.
 
I am a business owner. I would not use deadly force to defend or recover property and would be extremely angry with anyone who tried to do so on my behalf.
Click to expand...

Really? How easy my job would be if Memphis business owners felt that way. Or Mississippians for that matter. I could just resond to a call and sit in my patrol vehicle until it's over then go write a report! And everyone would thank me for not being so foolish as to try and defend their stuff!

Just like all those YouTube commentators that think it is reckless to pursue speeders! They'll all thank me for not chasing reckless drivers and adding to the danger already on the road.

I'm just saying that YOU may not want stuff protected, but, believe me, I hear a plethora of gripes everyday from people who do. I respect your feelings on it, truly. I just have to hear to much to the contrary for my taste and have to accommodate them, too.
 
I am pretty thorn on this one. On the surface, I think that Thalheimer made a dangerous error and was lucky no one, including innocent bystanders, got hurt. Items can be replaced, even if the store owner had no insurance. But being a business owner, I think I would stand up to robbers coming into my establishment and trying to rob me (for the reasons below).

But then there is the emotional part of me. There is a portion that says that I am sick and tired of being the victim. I am tired of watching evil people push law-abiding citizens around. I grow tired of the revolving door of the criminal justice system. I am tired of watching evil ‘win’ in our society. And if ‘I’ don’t stand up to stop it, who will?

Personally, I would not have used force to thwart the crime but I can understand why Thalheimer did. Some folks are just getting tired of being pushed around by criminals that get a slap on the wrist and then are set free to rob/harm others.
 
However, T and T isn't about how your emotions play out. It's about what is the sensible action and techniques.

We all feel outrage about this and that. I could expound on the causes of crime - that's not T and T.
 
micahweeks said:
Really? How easy my job would be if Memphis business owners felt that way. Or Mississippians for that matter. I could just resond to a call and sit in my patrol vehicle until it's over then go write a report! And everyone would thank me for not being so foolish as to try and defend their stuff!
Click to expand...


Your a cop. It's your job.... though I don't expect you to shoot people for my stuff either. You are SUPPOSED TO interrupt robberies. You are SUPPOSED TO be ready for violence. You are TRAINED to respond and have the AUTHORITY to do so.


Some dude who happens to be in the area and decides to ram a vehicle can not reasonably be compared to a police officer responding to a robbery call.
 
I can understand the frustration that comes from seeing evil doers get away. But I haven't read any posts on here that says they hope the bad guys get away scott free. Arguing against that position is a straw man argument. The question at hand is, were valid tactics used?

If I understand the situation correctly, the jewelry store owner saw the robbers accost a person delivering jewelry to his store. It would seem that he was not even financially responsible for the merchandise at that point. Although he was justifiably outraged at seeing an acquaintance robbed of their possessions, the robbers had someone else's stuff in their hands and were leaving. No lives were at risk at that point. He had no dog in this fight except his own sense of justice.

He chose to ram their car, thus escalating the situation to the point of gunfire. If an earlier post on this thread is correct, he also took shots at a range of at least 35 yards with a snubby revolver. All this took place in a shopping center, presumably with other people around at that time of day. I have to wonder, too, if the 35-yard shots were across a road with traffic passing by.

I am not advocating charges against this guy, but he put a lot of people, including himself, at unnecessary risk. Only blind dumb luck prevented casualties among passersby. This is not a responsible use of a firearm. This is not just a matter of "let the insurance company cover it," as some on here have said. It is a matter of making a responsible decision to value one's own life and the lives of innocent bystanders over material possessions. He did not do that. He let his anger, as justified as it might be, override good judgment and the safety of those around him. That is vigilantism, not tactics.

Bad call. Very bad.
 
He more than likely reacted without thinking the whole thing thru.

If they were being delivered and not recieved then they are still the property of the company bringing them and I bet they have insurance.

I would find it very hard to shoot someone that took property from me. It doesnt hurt me physically, so it cannot be a threat to my personal well being so no gun play or jail time is on the horizon, this is my way of thinking, I would smile and wave as they drove off writing down the plate number and as much info on the guys as I could.

My super man costume is on the fritz......
 
He chose to ram their car, thus escalating the situation to the point of gunfire.
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure that is a valid argument. Ramming someones car doesn't escalate a situation into a gunfight (but it can put you a lot closer to being in one). The gunfight was really started by the robbers, when one brandished a weapon at the store owner. I'm not saying the store owner was right in his actions, but I think in his mind he didn't think he would have to be in a gun fight when he made the decision to ram the car.

I'm pretty sure that in most jurisdictions, it is lawful to use a certain level of force to recover stolen property (I don't know for sure, because I never plan on doing that). But taken in that context, it is possible that the store owner thought he was using a reasonable amount of force (ramming the car) to prevent people from stealing property.
Unfortunately, at that point, it turned into a gunfight, but you can't blame the store owner for starting the gunfight. Just being reckless enough to put himself in a situation that had a higher chance of one happening...
 
markj said:
He more than likely reacted without thinking the whole thing thru.
Click to expand...

krangl said:
I think in his mind he didn't think he would have to be in a gun fight when he made the decision to ram the car.
Click to expand...



That's the crux of the problem right there.

He either:

A)Didn't think it through; or

B)Thought it through and thought it was OK.


Really, he's sort of doubly wrong either way.

Personally, I believe that when we choose to carry a gun, we have a real responsibility to think about the implications of our decisions LONG before we are actually in a position to make them.

So, if (A), he fails for not thinking it through ahead of time, if (B), he fails for thinking it through and believing his actions were appropriate.

One of the reasons why I believe this forum to be so valuable is because it gives each of us the ability to think these things through without having to be there. I believe there is a MUCH higher probability of doing the right thing if you have thoroughly considered the implications beforehand.
 
I will make the point that he probably doesn't care what you all think about his decision. Personally, I wouldn't have made the decision grandmaster(if I have that right) did. Its probably been easy for him to look back and realize what he should've done and/or what he would do if the same situation happened again.
 
If he hit 5 perps and got his merchandise back would some of us armchair commandos think differently ?. I'd wager some would.
 
Great guy, the sort you want covering your back,

but he

rammed his truck into another vehicle. Be interesting to find out if his insurance company covers the damage.

Fired shots and missed!. If he had hit the bad guys, they might have sued him.

If they had hit him, he would be in a world of hurt, and who is going to pay his medical bills?

He had a lot to lose over a property crime, and I suspect, he is going to lose a lot.

I wish him luck.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top