The beauty of CCW

[Antisocial Virge]

Originally posted by: Midwayman
That guy is lucky charges weren't brought against him. Even if criminal charges aren't pressed (and they could be, and shot in the back is a bad shoot in most states) He is still open to civil suits from the robber or family of the robber. With video evidence showing he shot when the bad guy was clearly running away, I wouldnt want to be in his shoes.

This happened in my town. The guy was lucky he didn't get charged by the cops. He made alot of mistakes but the DA and the police kinda looked the other way. If they followed the rules of conceal and carry to the T he would have been in jail.

 

[LS20]

Originally posted by: Sqube
randay, did you look at Whoozyerdaddy's image? It seems that, well... things were a touch bit safer than they would have appeared at first glance.

and did you see the positioning of the camera relative to the trend line of the gun exaggerate the picture in shooter's favor?

shift the camera to be behind teh shooter and its a narrow miss

 

[hanoverphist]

Originally posted by: GarlicBreath
Hey, how come the robber didn't just take the clerk's gun and use it against him? I hear that's easy to do.

looks like it went down too fast for the robber to do anything but cut and run. i hear that happens when youre surprised and a bit scared.

CCW train classes arent really that hard, but they do focus heavily on the ability to make snap decisions, as well as close-quarter firearm handling. at least here in arizona its like that. the clerk could also stand to lose his job, i dont think ive ever worked with a company that doesnt have a policy in place that states implicitly to let the robbers have whatever they want, short of your life. if i had been in that situation and seen him turn tail and run, id have followed to make sure he wasnt going to circle back, but not shot. he was running scared, and the cops were on the way. of course, again, here in az if you shoot someone in the back, he batter be running backwards at you with a gun/ knife pointed in your direction. otherwise, youre doomed to charges.

 

[JujuFish]

Originally posted by: LS20

Originally posted by: Sqube
randay, did you look at Whoozyerdaddy's image? It seems that, well... things were a touch bit safer than they would have appeared at first glance.

and did you see the positioning of the camera relative to the trend line of the gun exaggerate the picture in shooter's favor?

shift the camera to be behind teh shooter and its a narrow miss

Uh, it's just the opposite of what you're saying. The positioning of the camera makes the woman seem closer to the action than she really is.

 

[Amused]

I don't know why everyone thinks he shot 3 times, and only while the robber was running.

It's pretty obvious from the video that the clerk's first shot happens the second he pulls the gun, and the robber fires also which causes the both clerks to duck. The clerk then follows the robber and fires as long as he's moving. Which is the correct thing to do. If someone shoots at you you shoot back until they can no longer shoot at you.

The clerk shot 4 times. The robber shot once. It doesn't matter what the video description says.

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: Amused
I don't know why everyone thinks he shot 3 times, and only while the robber was running.

It's pretty obvious from the video that the clerk's first shot happens the second he pulls the gun, and the robber fires also which causes the both clerks to duck. The clerk then follows the robber and fires as long as he's moving. Which is the correct thing to do. If someone shoots at you you shoot back until they can no longer shoot at you.

The clerk shot 4 times. The robber shot once. It doesn't matter what the video description says.

the news article says 3 shots.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: Amused
I don't know why everyone thinks he shot 3 times, and only while the robber was running.

It's pretty obvious from the video that the clerk's first shot happens the second he pulls the gun, and the robber fires also which causes the both clerks to duck. The clerk then follows the robber and fires as long as he's moving. Which is the correct thing to do. If someone shoots at you you shoot back until they can no longer shoot at you.

The clerk shot 4 times. The robber shot once. It doesn't matter what the video description says.

the news article says 3 shots.

Um, no. That's not part of the article. That's commentary.

3 shots fired, all 3 hit the bad guy, gun was a glock 23, 40cal with 165g Gold dots

And it's even spaced wrong from the paragraph above it.

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: Amused
I don't know why everyone thinks he shot 3 times, and only while the robber was running.

It's pretty obvious from the video that the clerk's first shot happens the second he pulls the gun, and the robber fires also which causes the both clerks to duck. The clerk then follows the robber and fires as long as he's moving. Which is the correct thing to do. If someone shoots at you you shoot back until they can no longer shoot at you.

The clerk shot 4 times. The robber shot once. It doesn't matter what the video description says.

the news article says 3 shots.

Um, no. That's not part of the article. That's commentary.

3 shots fired, all 3 hit the bad guy, gun was a glock 23, 40cal with 165g Gold dots

And it's even spaced wrong from the paragraph above it.

doh, my bad. usually i know better then to believe stuff i read. i could have sworn i saw the original news article, but i cant find it now. seems like the page is missing from the actual news channels website...

 

[zeruty]

Originally posted by: Amused
I don't know why everyone thinks he shot 3 times, and only while the robber was running.

It's pretty obvious from the video that the clerk's first shot happens the second he pulls the gun, and the robber fires also which causes the both clerks to duck. The clerk then follows the robber and fires as long as he's moving. Which is the correct thing to do. If someone shoots at you you shoot back until they can no longer shoot at you.

The clerk shot 4 times. The robber shot once. It doesn't matter what the video description says.

Still haven't watched the video, but if this is true, the robber fired a shot.... then absolutely, shoot until the robber can't shoot again.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: SirStev0
and they say hand guns do not stop crime?

Now imagine is 50% of the country was as well armed, cool headed and well trained as this individual.

I'd bet dollarts to donuts crime would absolutely plumet.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: Amused
I don't know why everyone thinks he shot 3 times, and only while the robber was running.

It's pretty obvious from the video that the clerk's first shot happens the second he pulls the gun, and the robber fires also which causes the both clerks to duck. The clerk then follows the robber and fires as long as he's moving. Which is the correct thing to do. If someone shoots at you you shoot back until they can no longer shoot at you.

The clerk shot 4 times. The robber shot once. It doesn't matter what the video description says.

the news article says 3 shots.

Um, no. That's not part of the article. That's commentary.

3 shots fired, all 3 hit the bad guy, gun was a glock 23, 40cal with 165g Gold dots

And it's even spaced wrong from the paragraph above it.

doh, my bad. usually i know better then to believe stuff i read. i could have sworn i saw the original news article, but i cant find it now. seems like the page is missing from the actual news channels website...

Yeah, the way the commentary was added was misleading. But you can quickly tell it's not what a reporter would write.

And it's not on the site anymore because the shooting happened in August of 2005.

 

[DayLaPaul]

I saw this video a while back in a glocktalk post. The guy involved in the shooting was a member of another gun forum and was actually able to add a lot more detail. He explained that the camera angle makes it appear closer to the baby than it really was.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: randay
yes, discharge your gun inches away from your coworker, a mother, and her baby.

"beautiful" :disgust:

Exactly. The guy may have been an exceptional marksman, but you can't control the actions of others. What if the mother or child had made a sudden wrong movement when the shots went off? Losing a few hundred dollars is insignificant if the child had its grey matter splattered against the walls.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: randay
yes, discharge your gun inches away from your coworker, a mother, and her baby.

"beautiful" :disgust:

Exactly. The guy may have been an exceptional marksman, but you can't control the actions of others. What if the mother or child had made a sudden wrong movement when the shots went off? Losing a few hundred dollars is insignificant if the child had its grey matter splattered against the walls.

A few hundred dollars is NOT all that was at risk. Robbers execute victims all the time.

If you're not a cop and you point a gun at me, I'm going to assume you mean to kill me. I will NOT put my life in the hands of a criminal. No one should be forced to.

 

[ElMonoDelMar]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: randay
yes, discharge your gun inches away from your coworker, a mother, and her baby.

"beautiful" :disgust:

Exactly. The guy may have been an exceptional marksman, but you can't control the actions of others. What if the mother or child had made a sudden wrong movement when the shots went off? Losing a few hundred dollars is insignificant if the child had its grey matter splattered against the walls.

A few hundred dollars is NOT all that was at risk. Robbers execute victims all the time.

If you're not a cop and you point a gun at me, I'm going to assume you mean to kill me. I will NOT put my life in the hands of a criminal. No one should be forced to.

2nd that!

My uncle was working late night at a gas station when a guy came in to rob him. My uncle cooperated fully, and the guy executed him on his way out.

You never know what these psychos are willing to do. Good thing this CCW holder had the good sense to do what he did.

 

[thepd7]

Originally posted by: GarlicBreath
Hey, how come the robber didn't just take the clerk's gun and use it against him? I hear that's easy to do.

LOL yeah I hear that a lot too.

Originally posted by: randay

Text his arms are probably pressed up against the right side of her face, and her body is completely covered by his from the cameras point of view. I'd say at least half if not more of his body is completely shielded by his coworkers body. she starts to duck after that, and the ccw sort of shrugs his shoulders and brings his head down a bit, as if to duck himself, like if a shot got fired at him. then the robber runs low to the ground and out the door while getting shot at. In this screenshot you can see the mother and child would have been directly in the line of fire if the mother hadnt moved. Since she didnt move at all in the beginning I am assuming she thought the workers were going to comply with the robber. Pretty dumb if you ask me if I was her I'd have booked it the second I saw some dude with a sock over his head, instead of just leaving your baby on the counter while the place gets robbed. maybe she was in shock or disbelief.

You can say what you like, I agreed that it was possible that the girl could have been hit by the robber but as myself and others have pointed out it is just as likely that the robber could have shot them if the guy hadn't done anything. Obviously with his skills he made the right decision and I completely disagree with those saying he used the woman as a shield.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: randay
yes, discharge your gun inches away from your coworker, a mother, and her baby.

"beautiful" :disgust:

It's called a wide angle camera lens. There was plenty of room between the mother/baby and the shooting lane.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: randay
yes, discharge your gun inches away from your coworker, a mother, and her baby.

"beautiful" :disgust:

Exactly. The guy may have been an exceptional marksman, but you can't control the actions of others. What if the mother or child had made a sudden wrong movement when the shots went off? Losing a few hundred dollars is insignificant if the child had its grey matter splattered against the walls.

A few hundred dollars is NOT all that was at risk. Robbers execute victims all the time.

If you're not a cop and you point a gun at me, I'm going to assume you mean to kill me. I will NOT put my life in the hands of a criminal. No one should be forced to.

Exactly. Point a gun at me, and you better shoot be before I shoot you.

 

[chambersc]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Blazin Trav
I guess, but the woman with the kid looked like she almost died.

no ******.

the kid looked almost in the line of fire. WTF that was idiotic!

Camera angle. The bystanders were well outside of the line of fire.

that's HIGHLY debatable. I contend that they weren't as "well outside of the line of fire" as you claim.

 

[adairusmc]

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Blazin Trav
I guess, but the woman with the kid looked like she almost died.

no ******.

the kid looked almost in the line of fire. WTF that was idiotic!

Camera angle. The bystanders were well outside of the line of fire.

that's HIGHLY debatable.

Not really, no.

 

[NesuD]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: Sqube
randay, did you look at Whoozyerdaddy's image? It seems that, well... things were a touch bit safer than they would have appeared at first glance.

um.. why does his image matter when I can just watch the video for myself? in the end it went down well, but thats not to say that he didnt put the mother and baby and his coworker in a lot of danger.

Dolt! The idiot robber is the one who put them in danger. The Clerk eliminated the threat.

 

[WA261]

Wow..that was so close to the child and mother.

 

[Eos]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: SirStev0
and they say hand guns do not stop crime?

Now imagine is 50% of the country was as well armed, cool headed and well trained as this individual.

I'd bet dollarts to donuts crime would absolutely plumet.

Yeah. Imagine.

Has there ever been a time in history when the majority of the populous carried?

 

[EarthwormJim]

Originally posted by: WA261
Wow..that was so close to the child and mother.

It's a wide angle lens. There were at least a few feet between the woman and baby and the ccw.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: randay
yes, discharge your gun inches away from your coworker, a mother, and her baby.

"beautiful" :disgust:

Exactly. The guy may have been an exceptional marksman, but you can't control the actions of others. What if the mother or child had made a sudden wrong movement when the shots went off? Losing a few hundred dollars is insignificant if the child had its grey matter splattered against the walls.

A few hundred dollars is NOT all that was at risk. Robbers execute victims all the time.

If you're not a cop and you point a gun at me, I'm going to assume you mean to kill me. I will NOT put my life in the hands of a criminal. No one should be forced to.

perfect example, tookie williams, remember that bastard that got all that press over the death penalty? he executed most of an asian family who ran a motel. and a store clerk too. f*cks like him deserve to be shot to hell.