Video of robber killed in Pharmacy holdup - One-shot stop? Caliber?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hard to say how many shots were fired. Looks like 1, but could possibly be 2 (or 3).

I did notice however that the robber did not stop to ask the guy who shot him, what caliber he was planning on shooting him with so he could plan his actions accordingly. Almost makes me think that placement is kind of important.
 
Excellent example of a SD shooting. The guard waited for his moment and then acted quickly and decisively. He protected both himself and the employees in a way as to not further endanger them. After the shooting compassion was shown for the fallen assailant in the fact they were trying to get him medical aid as quickly as possible. People often forget you use your gun to stop a threat, not to kill a person. You do not have to lower yourself to their level by hoping they die or saying "they got what they deserve."
 
Cerick
Dropping like that, he may have been hit in the spine.
Click to expand...

Seems to me that his feet were kicking around a bit too much for that to have hit his spine.

Out of curiosity, at the end of the video when the frame is frozen it looks like he might be using a shrouded revolver? Perhaps a .357 or .38 +P?
 
That was a justifiable shoot judging from the video. Slam-dunk. I don't see how the guard could've acted more valiantly.

It bothered me a little bit that the owner had apparently stated he had to hire the guard. I'm curious about the hx of this store re robberies, and if this particular robber had any contact with the store before.

Unfortunate incident. I feel sorry for the guard that he had to do what he had to do.

Was there a sight picture? Was there a variation of 'point-shooting'? Was it a one-shot stop?

Gosh, another split second and the robber would have shot the guard-did you see robber point the gun at guard after he saw him? That was really frightening.

I hope it (guard's gun) wasn't a .45.
 
Last edited:
From the way the thug was squirming on the ground I suspect what you see is a classic example of the "oh no I've been SHOT" mentality. Then again it could have simply been a good hit in a disabling area.
 
ZeSpectre
From the way the thug was squirming on the ground I suspect what you see is a classic example of the "oh no I've been SHOT" mentality. Then again it could have simply been a good hit in a disabling area.
Click to expand...

That was my feeling too. He was expecting to walk in, grab drugs, walk out. Probably never even occured to him that he could be hurt, let alone killed.
 
Is there a legal requirement to have a reason to believe the gunman would actually shoot (assuming he wasn't further provoked) rather than take the drugs and leave? {We can assume he turned his attention and gun to the security guard b/c the security guard moved rapidly from his original position.}

Would this be the equivalent to shooting someone who is in your house without making any attempt to avoid shooting? i.e. You see someone in your house, "see" (or believe you see) a gun, and just shoot them with no hesitation.

The videotape in this question seems like it could be a liability, no?

[I'll agree that once the guard began to act, the risk to everyone went up quickly and shooting without hesitation was probably a good idea. However, I can see a liberal prosecutor trying to find a way to blame the security guard for the death, saying perhaps that he himself raised the stakes by making a move. Now, I couldn't tell if there was audio on that security tape to hear what was said which may influence the judgement.]
 
This situation is not at all similar to finding someone in your home and shooting without seeing a weapon. The assailant had a weapon drawn and actively threatening them.

I do agree that if they had complied, the assailant would have most likely left without firing. He was most likely after the drugs, not out to kill someone. His crime had a goal. If it had just been the employees they would have been best served to just turn over the drugs since the assailant was very focused on them and pulling a weapon or resisting would have most likely ended in injury or death if the assailant was willing to pull the trigger.

Luckily for the store owner, he had taken extra precautions by hiring a security guard. The guard was able to be outside of the actual confrontation and was able to act with less scrutiny from the assailant since he was existing outside of the assailants area of focus.
 
I can see a liberal prosecutor trying to find a way to blame the security guard for the death, saying perhaps that he himself raised the stakes by making a move.
Click to expand...
When are we going to quit making excuses for people who use firearms in robberies?
Once a firearm is used in a robbery and actually pointed at a victim, the 'stakes' are already as high as they get.
Life or death.
One split second squeeze of the trigger and that pharmacist is dead.
Permanently.
When someone runs into anywhere waving a gun around they become the instigator.
They bring the violence.
This is all just IMHO of course, but I can tell you that, here in Indiana, they have increased the sentencing alot for guns used while in the commission of a crime.

Also the guard did not fire until the robber pointed the gun at him.
Do you have to wait until the robber shoots you?
 
Last edited:
Is there a legal requirement to have a reason to believe the gunman would actually shoot (assuming he wasn't further provoked) rather than take the drugs and leave?
Click to expand...


No. Presentation of a gun is reason to believe the gun will be used. In some places nothing more than attempted robbery is sufficient reason to shoot, regardless of weapons presented. Once a gun is pointed at someone there is not a law I know of prohibiting defense of that person.

If someone robs my store with a gun then they're getting shot if I have a chance. A knife or simply the threat of a weapon is different. If I get the drop on a guy with a gun I'm gonna shoot, just like this guy.
 
It's interesting to think about what the anti's perspective would be here.

"If you had just given him what he wanted, he wouldn't be dead right now. Introducing a gun into the situation got someone killed..."

The obvious response being:

"But the robber was the only one who had a gun that didn't have a legal reason to be in the Pharmacy. So doesn't that mean the robber got himself killed?"

Sadly they can't seem to think this through on their own.
 
e-z

heres an easy way to think of it.....If a cop was there would he have shot em? I dont think the cop would look at a man who has a bead on the clerk and say DROP IT DROP IT! He swung his gun to the security guard and obviously had intentions of shooting. The man was right in shooting him. It has to be done its a shame it happened but this man made the decision to end his life long before he pulled the gun on the clerk. PLay with fire...
 
I guess the real legal sticky would have been if the guard drew, the assailant shot the pharmacist, and then the guard dropped the assailant.

I'm not at all trying to defend the bad guy; even just in the few traffic incidents I've taken to court, I've seen how little the prosecutor cares about what actually happened, or whether or was legal or not.

I suppose the end result is this -- if this was your home, would you want a video tape of an incident like this or not? Take away the video tape and there's very little to play Monday morning quarterback with. In this case, the video seems like it could be used as evidence against the guard more than anything else.
 
BAD SHOOT BAD SHOOT BAD SHOOT:eek::eek::eek:
That guy wasn't really gonna shoot no one... The gun was just for added affect! He just needed the drugs to sell to feed his children who were at home...
 
In this case, the video seems like it could be used as evidence against the guard more than anything else.
Click to expand...

There is NOTHING to use against the guard. By all accounts the BG presented a gun, which is an explicit threat and demanded property- which is a shoot scenario in itself in many places. There is NO case to be made against the guard. This is 100% justifiable. Even the most liberal anti-gun DA would have major trouble prosecuting this one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top