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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.]
Click to expand...


What may happen to you my friend is, because you are so worried about being prosecuted, you may freeze when you need to shoot and instead of being prosecuted you will be dead.
 
The security guard showed amazing restraint. He didn't shoot until the gun was pointed directly at him:eek: I don't think I would wait that long. Hooray for the good guys:D
 
What may happen to you my friend is, because you are so worried about being prosecuted, you may freeze when you need to shoot and instead of being prosecuted you will be dead.
Click to expand...

I think my position would be to not be too open to discuss what happened with the cops until I had secured my own legal defense, regardless of how sure I was about my actions.

Now, in NJ, where I'm at, the only place I'd ever have my gun handy would be at home or the range. At home, I'm not going to have any security cams inside my house, so that's not an issue.

Just take a peek over at the other thread regarding whether or not to try and hold someone at gunpoint (in your house for example). There is too much legal gray area to be open with anyone who could use that info against you.

Read a little Ayoob if you think you know it all on what a good shoot would be. The law is a be-otch. Defending yourself (legally) after the shooting is over should not be forgotten.
 
Wasn't hired to be A witness

If the robber was on his way out of the Store it would be A different situation,however the robbery was still in progress and who knows what was on the robbers mind. He may have shot the Pharmacist as soon as he got the backback back full of drugs. The security guard did his job,he wasn't hired to be A witness.
 
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.
Click to expand...

This would not be any more sticky than the situation as it was. The guard was threatened and being a guard, a policeman, or a regular citizen, had the right to defend his own life.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Why are you even second guessing the BG here?? Are you omniscient? The robber was brandishing a firearm and was threatening the pharmacist. It sickens me to see an innocent man just trying to make a living being threatened with great bodily injury or death...and yet you think you know the "likely" outcome. You have zero idea of what the robber was capable of doing. Shame on you for even typing out your words.

:confused::barf::mad:
 
Last edited:
The BG had his weapon out, pointing it at the clerk and that is a treat to do harm, he also pointed it at the security guard when the guard moved. Deadly force is justified.
 
i agree chuck,what is there a debate over this for? the robber went their with the intent of robbery a felony with a handgun.there is no debate,the guard did what he was paid to do,protect the store. end of story! im willing to bet that when word of this hit the streets THAT store will be avoided,at least until the next junkie gets stupid.
 
About ten years ago two 17 year olds went into a dairy mart in our area.5:00 in the morning so light traffic,told the 57 year old female clerk to empty the register.She complied so they made her lay on the floor and shot her in the back of the head killing her.So much for giving them what they wanted so they would leave.They were two white teenagers from a middle class background.You try to think too much into it and you'll be dead,best thing is to follow your instincts.Thirteen years in the military police and at least i learned that.
 
One thing people must remember is that the exception proves the rule...not vice versa. You are much more likely to survive such an attack if you co-operate. Especially if an armed assailant has the drop on you. Going for a weapon will almost guarantee they will fire if they are at all willing to do so. There is no denying that. That does not mean you are obligated to not fight back, it just means you decrease your odds of surviving the attack.

In this situation, there was one big advantage. A third party that was able to act decisively while not being the focus of the assailant.
 
i agree chuck,what is there a debate over this for?
Click to expand...

Good question. Apparently some here have some deep seated need to amaze us yet again with their powers of perception based upon their acute expertise in the field of human psychology and (limited) experience in LE.

One thing people must remember is that the exception proves the rule...not vice versa. You are much more likely to survive such an attack if you co-operate. Especially if an armed assailant has the drop on you. Going for a weapon will almost guarantee they will fire if they are at all willing to do so. There is no denying that. That does not mean you are obligated to not fight back, it just means you decrease your odds of surviving the attack.
Click to expand...

You are writing checks for us that you cant cash. Dont BS us with "rules". An experience like that in the video is an exception to the rule for everyone...especially to those who experienced it. I wont bet on what the other guy might "likely do" when it comes to my life. Again, you write of things which you know very little to nothing about.
 
Here's an article that provides more details. According to it, the attacker was shot twice in the chest.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29069767/
You are much more likely to survive such an attack if you co-operate.
Click to expand...
That is not correct. The statistics indicate that the best chance for remaining uninjured during a violent crime is NOT compliance but rather resistance with a firearm.

Resisting without effective means does raise your chances of injury compared to compliance, but if you have a firearm and can bring it into play then, statistically speaking, you're better off resisting. Obviously every case is different and the statistics shouldn't be used to make blanket decisions without evaluating the particular situation.

One more caution. Those statistics are taken across the board. That is, they don't break down the violent attacks by whether/how the attacker is armed. There has been discussion on TFL about whether you still have an advantage when the attacker is armed with a firearm, but to my knowledge there are no statistics that speak directly to that question.

Based on the informal research I have done, attackers generally disengage immediately when a firearm comes into play on the part of the defender and that tends to hold true even when the attackers outnumber and "outgun" the victim. In other words, the attacker doesn't seem to be making a careful, logical decision when the victim presents a firearm (Let's see, I've got a rifle and a tactically advantageous position over that citizen armed with a mouse gun so I believe I'll stand my ground and shoot it out.). Instead it seems to be a subjective, emotional decision (I really don't want to find out how it might feel to get shot; I'm getting out of here NOW!).

Again, that is a general tendency, NOT a guarantee of a particular outcome. Every situation must be evaluated based on its unique circumstances.
 
You are writing checks for us that you cant cash. Dont BS us with "rules". An experience like that in the video is an exception to the rule for everyone...especially to those who experienced it. I wont bet on what the other guy might "likely do" when it comes to my life.
Click to expand...
You are always betting on what another guy "might do" in your life outside you home...and inside it to some extent. If a person does not possess the ability to rationally weigh the odds, they should not be armed.
 
If a person does not possess the ability to rationally weigh the odds, they should not be armed.
Click to expand...

You amaze us yet AGAIN. Basically what your saying is that when I see a man standing less than 10 feet from me and is pointing a gun at my head (or someone near me), the odds are that I will be a-ok.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You amaze us yet AGAIN. Basically what your saying is that when I see a man standing less than 10 feet from me and is pointing a gun at my head (or someone near me), the odds are that I will be a-ok.
Click to expand...
If that is the only way you are capable of comprehending the complexity of the statement I am afraid it does not matter what I am telling you.
 
That's the very problem with your statement. You make generalities out a situation where likelihoods and probabilities could very well get you killed.
 
That's the very problem with your statement. You make generalities out a situation where likelihoods and probabilities could very well get you killed
Click to expand...
No, it is very specific and factually supportable. Your desire to deny it does not change that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top