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

[nightshade1824]

And pop goes the weasel

[sureshots]

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.

[Double Naught Spy]

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.

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.

[Creature]

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.

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.

:barf:

[Chuckusaret]

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.

[rshanneck2002]

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.

[m.p.driver]

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.

[Playboypenguin]

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.

[Creature]

i agree chuck,what is there a debate over this for?

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.

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.

[JohnKSa]

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.

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.

[Playboypenguin]

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.

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.

[Creature]

If a person does not possess the ability to rationally weigh the odds, they should not be armed.

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.

[Playboypenguin]

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.

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.

[Creature]

That's the very problem with your statement. You make generalities out a situation where likelihoods and probabilities could very well get you killed.

[Playboypenguin]

That's the very problem with your statement. You make generalities out a situation where likelihoods and probabilities could very well get you killed

No, it is very specific and factually supportable. Your desire to deny it does not change that.

[Creature]

Apparently you missed JohnSK's post in which he directly refutes your statement. Lets see your factually supported specifics.

[Crosshair]

You are much more likely to survive such an attack if you co-operate.

We had a college student get carjacked a few years ago. She Co-operated with her attacker. They found her body 5 months later when the snow melted.

So much for blanket statistics.

[Playboypenguin]

We had a college student get carjacked a few years ago. She Co-operated with her attacker. They found her body 5 months later when the snow melted.

So much for blanket statistics.

Carjacking and store robberies are not comparable. You are just muddying the waters and trying to confuse the issue. Plus, like I said, an exception does not disprove a rule. My guns usually fire safely when I pull the trigger. This one guy had his blow up when he did. Does that mean mine are not safe now?

[Creature]

Stop avoiding the question.

Prove that compliant victims are less likely to be killed when confronted by an armed assailant than an armed victim who has yet to draw a weapon.

[Playboypenguin]

Apparently you missed JohnSK's post in which he directly refutes your statement. Lets see your factually supported specifics.

John's post, while well thought out, is pretty much just a "it seems to me" statement. It is not supported in fact or statistics. I own my own business. I deal with insurance companies. These companies spend a lot of time having actuaries figure out your most likely means to avoid injury. None of their findings support fighting back unless you have immediate reason to believe they are going to shoot. Such as removing you from your workstation, locking doors, etc. You have obviously never owned a business or looked into the crime statistics regarding robberies and resistance.

John is absolutely right about one thing. Pulling a gun on a robber that is either not capable of firing or not willing to fire will cause them to flee. But if they are are capable and willing you have probably sealed your doom by going for a weapon when someone else has a bead on you...unless you fancy yourself quite the Rambo.

[Creature]

Well then it should be easy for you to show us those facts and statistics upon which you and the insurance companies base their claims.

I am no Rambo, but I will never let a robber take me on HIS terms if I can help it.

So, how about those verifiable statistics?

[Philo_Beddoe]

This was totally justifiable, the robber was pointing his gun at the pharmacist, obviously that is threatening deadly force.

This security guard will be fine.

You point a gun at someone, and you get shot, well thats on you as far as I am concerned.

[Playboypenguin]

Well then it should be easy for you to show us those facts and statistics upon which you and the insurance companies base their claims.

I am no Rambo, but I will never let a robber take me on HIS terms if I can help it.

So, how about those verifiable statistics?

I have the weight of common knowledge on my side and have shown that.

How about you try and prove otherwise? C'mon, let's see some information that shows resisting a robbery increases your odds of survival. You like to play contrary all the time and demand info but I never see you actually credibly dispute anything. You just like to argue negatives and play the burden game. Let's see if you can walk the walk.

[JohnKSa]

John's post, while well thought out, is pretty much just a "it seems to me" statement.

That's true as it applies to situations where the attacker is armed with a firearm since the statistics aren't broken out that precisely.

However, in the general case (across the board violent crimes) there are statistics that indicate clearly that resistance without a firearm is a better strategy than compliance if remaining uninjured is the goal.

I own my own business. I deal with insurance companies. These companies spend a lot of time having actuaries figure out your most likely means to avoid injury. None of their findings support fighting back unless you have immediate reason to believe they are going to shoot.

I'll bet if you get hold of the raw data they're using as opposed to their recommendations you'll see that you've misinterpreted their motives.

The problem with relying on the insurance companies is that they're not exclusively worried about the good guys remaining uninjured, they're also highly concerned with the bottom line.

Even in a case where the "good guys" prevail and no innocents are injured, the insurance company may end up paying out a large civil claim from an injured criminal or his family. On the other hand, if everyone complies, they have little to no liability as the result of actions by the criminal. In other words, if the criminal shoots someone the insurance company's liability is limited by the terms of the policy but if the security guard shoots the criminal the business/insurance company may have to pay out huge settlements.

Their advice is EXCELLENT if your primary concern is your business' bottom line, perhaps not so good if your primary concern is remaining uninjured.

But if they are are capable and willing you have probably sealed your doom by going for a weapon when someone else has a bead on you...

The key is not capability but rather their willingness. That is a factor that seems to be in short supply, generally speaking.

I spend a good deal of time reading through reports of self-defense in the news and it is not uncommon for the defender to present a firearm against an attacker who "has a bead on" the defender and still prevail uninjured. Yes, there are armed attackers who are willing to press the situation even against an armed defender, but that is definitely the exception rather than the rule.

Drawing against an attacker who has a bead on you is more dangerous than drawing on an unarmed attacker, but it's overstating the situation to say that you have "sealed your doom".

[Creature]

I have the weight of common knowledge on my side and have shown that.

How about you try and prove otherwise? C'mon, let's see some information that shows resisting a robbery increases your odds of survival. You like to play contrary all the time and demand info but I never see you actually credibly dispute anything. You just like to argue negatives and play the burden game. Let's see if you can walk the walk

I see. Your "verifiable facts" are now "common knowledge". You got nothing. You made a claim, and when I called you out on it to produce these facts and crime statistics, you come up empty. This is becoming a trend with you.