This Armed Robber Is One Lucky S.O.B.

[The_Outlaw]

Video surveillance from Saturday night captures the moment a would-be armed thief entered the Marionville, Mo., store where the armed veteran works. The thief hesitates for a moment and then pulls a gun — but not fast enough to dissuade the armed clerk from pulling his own Walther PPX 9 mm handgun and sticking it in the hapless thief’s mouth.

Link Removed

 

[Sir Diealotz]

Lucky criminal, he almost received an extra breathing orifice

 

[Peggy Reist]

Right or wrong, I think I'd have probably gone ahead and shot him. As long as he was still holding the gun, he's still a threat to me. It doesn't show in the video whether he dropped it or not.

 

[Cypher]

I’d say the clerk was the lucky one, he in no way had control of the robber’s gun and there was nothing to stop the robber from stepping back and firing. He may have gotten away with it this time but that was not the way to handle that

 

[JimTh]

I think LEO could learn something from this, that lawfully armed citizens are not about killing bad guys. Maybe they could take the hint when being confronted with a stressful situation and shoot only when there is no other resort. LEO has gotten to the point now where they go ahead and kill then try to find the way it can be justified. This is clearly a moment when a citizen had the right to shoot but refused to kill someone. My hat goes off to this clerk.

 

[JCliff]

Glad it turned out the way it did. Could have been a lot worse. Robber was clearly not up on his "game." Got too close, allowed himself to be controlled/distracted and ended up with a stunning view of the business end of the clerk's pistol!

 

[kelcarry]

Right or wrong, I think I'd have probably gone ahead and shot him. As long as he was still holding the gun, he's still a threat to me. It doesn't show in the video whether he dropped it or not.

Thanks Peggy. I stop imminent threats as permanently as I can. By definition, the BG will do whatever--so I will do whatever.

 

[N R A]

Had the clerk shot the BG, his live as he knew it, would be over.

 

[Cypher]

Had the clerk shot the BG, his live as he knew it, would be over.

Well yeah, because shooting an armed man who is in the middle of commiting a felony isn't justified or any thing.

I would have leveled my pistol and fired as soon as I cleared the holster

 

[JPKirkpatrick]

You know, I saw this video shortly after it appeared on the net and something about it bothered me.
I watched it a total of 10 times and figured it out. I have set up a lot of video surveillance systems for small convenience stores and right at the beginning of the video when the clerk is coming into view, the camera is being manipulated via remote, it pans from the left side of the register to cover the register and then zooms out. This is not something that can just happen, it has to be done via remote control. It is like it is being set up for a better view of the incident. I think what we saw was a "staged event", and the fact that the clerk being a 30 year militery retiree, former Private Security/Investigator letting the perp walk out rather than shoot an armed and dangerous individual or hold him for law enforcement to take care of just doesn't ring true. I think it is a HOAX!

 

[Cypher]

My understanding is someone is filming the film

 

[kelcarry]

You know, I saw this video shortly after it appeared on the net and something about it bothered me.
I watched it a total of 10 times and figured it out. I have set up a lot of video surveillance systems for small convenience stores and right at the beginning of the video when the clerk is coming into view, the camera is being manipulated via remote, it pans from the left side of the register to cover the register and then zooms out. This is not something that can just happen, it has to be done via remote control. It is like it is being set up for a better view of the incident. I think what we saw was a "staged event", and the fact that the clerk being a 30 year militery retiree, former Private Security/Investigator letting the perp walk out rather than shoot an armed and dangerous individual or hold him for law enforcement to take care of just doesn't ring true. I think it is a HOAX!

Regardless, this thread has replies and they make a point that most agree with. You come into my space with a firearm and I most certainly will, if I can, stop you and I can guarantee you that if I stop you permanently it will not even make a blip on my psyche.

 

[mappow]

Right or wrong, I think I'd have probably gone ahead and shot him. As long as he was still holding the gun, he's still a threat to me. It doesn't show in the video whether he dropped it or not.

For me it wouldn't have been a "Right or wrong". He drew, he presented a lethal threat, I drew and fired without a second thought. ONLY difference for me would have been if someone was standing behind him.

 

[JPKirkpatrick]

My understanding is someone is filming the film

I understand that they are making a quick copy of the surveillance video via a camera recording the monitor presentation, but look right at the point that the clerk comes in from the left, the copy camera is not being moved (the framing of the video is not moving) but the surveillance video is being zoomed out to get a better overall view. That can only have happened at the time of the incident using the PTZ Remote controls. This is a very suspicious video, and if I were investigating the incident, I would have a serious question as to it's authenticity of recording an attempted robbery in action.
Additionally, I still have a big problem where a 30-year Army Veteran and former Private Security/Investigator is going to allow an armed and dangerous individual just walk out the store. I think he would have shot the perp or at least disarmed him and held him for the police to take care of...

 

[BluesStringer]

I understand that they are making a quick copy of the surveillance video via a camera recording the monitor presentation, but look right at the point that the clerk comes in from the left, the copy camera is not being moved (the framing of the video is not moving) but the surveillance video is being zoomed out to get a better overall view. That can only have happened at the time of the incident using the PTZ Remote controls.

That looks very clear to me to be the "copy camera" as you say, doing the zooming out. The perspective on the original recording stays the same.

Even if I'm mistaken and someone was manipulating the security camera though, it could be someone in the back who saw the BG entering from another camera and did intentionally get the widest view possible of the register area. If s/he was back doing the till or making the night's deposit, the smartest thing they could do would be to stay out of sight and observe via the security system, while perhaps putting the cash back in the time-lock safe.

Additionally, I still have a big problem where a 30-year Army Veteran and former Private Security/Investigator is going to allow an armed and dangerous individual just walk out the store. I think he would have shot the perp or at least disarmed him and held him for the police to take care of...

Most combat vets I know have had their fill of killing. If they can avoid it, they will. I have a hard time criticizing, or even being suspicious of, anyone, combat vet or otherwise, who manages to get through a deadly situation without having to fire their weapon and/or killing someone. I can agree that he took a big chance by not disarming the BG, but I find nothing suspicious at all about him choosing life over death, even for a BG. No one is disqualified from Redemption if they seek it. The vet/cashier may have given that particular BG a reason to do just that. If not, he'll still pay a much higher price in the long run than the vet/cashier had the potential to impose upon him.

Blues

 

[Cypher]

As long as the crook has full freedom of movement and is armed and is only not shooting by choice then the clerk was not in control.

There was absolutely nothing in that video that indicated experience or training. The clerk left the bad guy in full control of his gun throughout the entire event. At any point after the clerk let go of the bad guy’s hand it wouldn’t have took the bad guy a second to level his gun and shoot The clerk put his gun right in the bad guy’s face (right where the still armed bad guy could grab it) and then lets the still armed bad guy back out of the store and again at any time the bad guy still had the capability to engage.

Unless God Himself wills that I encounter a rouge, uniformed, police officer while open carrying (which places us somewhere in the back country of Colorado’s Front Range anyway) who against all odds oversteps his duty and throws down on me because I’m OC There is no set of circumstance where I’m OK with a person who has just threatened me with deadly force and is still in full control of his firearm being free to move around my space. If things are bad enough for me to draw I am not going to waste any time threatening the bad guy, I’m going to engage the target as soon as my pistol clears the holster, at the point the gun comes out it would have only gone one of three ways for me

1. Robber shoots first and I try to stay in the fight until he's no longer a threat or I'm unable to continue

2. I shoot as soon as my firearm clears the holster and comes level (step 3 of a 4 part draw) I continue to shoot as long as the robber is a threat.

3. The robber drops his firearm (no other course of action is acceptable) immediately as my gun clears the holster and surrenders.

There is no way I'm going to let an armed man who just tried to rob me back up still armed either he drops the gun or I continue to shoot.

There isn't a professional trainer or a cop in this country that would tell you any different

 

[Tip]

Definitely staged. It was all too slow-mo like and not rehearsed enough. You can see the camera pan & zoom in. Then the clerk doesn't even hurry to call the cops. I think it was staged as a security ploy.

 

[BluesStringer]

There was absolutely nothing in that video that indicated experience or training.

I don't necessarily disagree. Still, nobody got hurt or died.

The clerk left the bad guy in full control of his gun throughout the entire event.

Please indulge me while I use a few of your points to juxtapose against another story that I'll link to below. In that story, a stranger approached an open carrying citizen just walking his dogs in a park and drew down on him. The LAC never pulled his gun.

At any point after the clerk let go of the bad guy’s hand it wouldn’t have took the bad guy a second to level his gun and shoot

At any time the stranger in the park could have pulled the trigger on the gun he pulled on the LAC.

The clerk put his gun right in the bad guy’s face (right where the still armed bad guy could grab it)....

The stranger kept his weapon within 6" to 7" of the LAC, and the LAC said at times his weapon made contact with his chest. The LAC did not try to gain control of the stranger's weapon, nor did he ever move to draw his own.

....and then lets the still armed bad guy back out of the store and again at any time the bad guy still had the capability to engage.

Similarly, the LAC did not try to stop the stranger when he finally holstered his weapon and allowed the situation to deescalate.

There is no set of circumstance where I’m OK with a person who has just threatened me with deadly force and is still in full control of his firearm being free to move around my space.

I'm going to call BS on that statement, based on the only two facts missing out of my juxtaposition. The stranger in the park was a cop, but he was acting so far outside the bounds of his authority, that his city had to pay the LAC a $15,000 settlement and guarantee that the whole force was re-trained. But because the cop was so far outside the bounds of his authority, he was no different than the BG in the video in this thread, and the LAC would have been within the law to defend himself with his openly carried weapon just as you state (accurately) that the cashier would have been within his rights to open fire immediately upon seeing the BG's gun. Only the OC'ers deference to a stranger's uniform saved the cop from being engaged, again, by a trained veteran and experienced shooter. But I'm going to bet that if you're honest (and that's a big "IF" to me), you will not agree that the two situations are comparable, because 1) the LAC was open carrying and was doing such just to draw attention to himself that he ended up getting, and 2) the BG (law-breaker) was a cop.

Link Removed on the off-chance you haven't already made up your mind that the OC'er was fortunate that he encountered a cop with such Herculean restraint.

So please tell the board if this assertion is still true: "There is no set of circumstance where I’m OK with a person who has just threatened me with deadly force and is still in full control of his firearm being free to move around my space."

Blues

 

[Cypher]

So please tell the board if this assertion is still true: "There is no set of circumstance where I’m OK with a person who has just threatened me with deadly force and is still in full control of his firearm being free to move around my space."

Blues

Ok I bow before the wisdom of O-sage sum dum goy and will here by amend my statement thusly,


Unless God Himself wills that I encounter a rouge, uniformed, police officer while open carrying (which places us somewhere in the back country of Colorado’s Front Range anyway) who against all odds oversteps his duty and throws down on me because I’m OC There is no set of circumstance where I’m OK with a person who has just threatened me with deadly force and is still in full control of his firearm being free to move around my space.

There I have indulged your whim now perhaps you’ll indulge mine and please tell the forum if you have the training and/or experience to refute the rest of my post?

 

[BluesStringer]

Ok I bow before the wisdom of O-sage sum dum goy and will here by amend my statement thusly,


Unless God Himself wills that I encounter a rouge, uniformed, police officer while open carrying ....

Boy, I nailed that one didn't I?

But I'm going to bet that if you're honest.... you will not agree that the two situations are comparable, because 1) the LAC was open carrying....

The only relevant point is the cop's gun being pulled for no legal reason whatsoever. The LAC could've been doing any legal thing that offended the sensibilities of the cop, from picking his nose in public to wearing a shirt with the words, "Cops Suck" scrawled across it to filming the "public servant" while doing his job in a public area. The OC'ers gun is completely incidental to the scenario. It didn't give the cop a reason to do what he did, it triggered his innate propensity to violate both the LAC's rights and his city's and department's laws/policies.

But I had no doubt that you would focus on the openly-carried gun. You "and" Treo are so freakin' predictable.

By the way, there is nothing in the story that I linked to that said the cop was wearing rouge, and the uniform is meaningless because the cop could've been an imposter for all the LAC knew, as they were both on foot. The LAC never made mention of ever seeing him drive into the park in a patrol unit, and only reports the incident starting as the costumed individual started making illegal demands of him as he approached him on foot.

If you meant to say he was a "rogue" cop, too bad Treo isn't a mod here. He could've (and would've) saved you from the embarrassment of your own spelling error. Well, except "he" wouldn't have caught it since "you" didn't.

...(which places us somewhere in the back country of Colorado’s Front Range anyway)

Nope, not fair. You didn't hold the vet/cashier in this thread's video only to laws that exist in your home state, so you don't get to change the rules to hold the OC'er to those rules either. It was the scenario being commented on, not the location.

who against all odds...

Against all odds??? Pffft.

....oversteps his duty ....

Nope, he overstepped his authority. There's really no way to overstep one's "duty." You either do your duty, or you don't. One can certainly perform their duty better or worse than the minimum requirements, but one can't "overstep" their duty.

....and throws down on me because I’m OC

Again, the LAC's OC'ing was 100% lawful. The cop "threw down" on him because the cop is a dangerous, lawless tyrant. The LAC's gun is a completely parenthetical and meaningless factoid to what happened.

There is no set of circumstance where I’m OK with a person who has just threatened me with deadly force and is still in full control of his firearm being free to move around my space.

Unless he happens to be wearing a uniform and you acquiesce to his law-breaking demands. Then he can shove a gun for no legal reason whatsoever right into your chest. Got it.

There I have indulged your whim now perhaps you’ll indulge mine and please tell the forum if you have the training and/or experience to refute the rest of my post?

We're not talking about the rest of your post, we're talking about your blatant bigotry of open carry/carriers and your wildly inconsistent reactions to a law-breaking, threatening individual with a gun in your chest as long as he's wearing a uniform vs. one like in the OP video of this thread.

But for the record, "yes."

Now it's up to you to guess which question I was actually answering in my mind so I could rationalize that I wasn't being dishonest, because putting an obfuscatory paragraph between the question and the answer doesn't necessarily mean that the person giving the answer still had the same question in mind. And I wouldn't put it past you for a second to indulge in such games with the truth.

Blues