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

brentfoto · February 12, 2009, 01:12 PM

http://www.wftv.com/video/18676583/index.html

This should generate some interesting discussion. It's one of the most graphic videos of actual CQC I've seen.

Someone else posted this video on S&W forum.

Comments?

Sparks2112 · February 12, 2009, 02:10 PM

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.

Cerick · February 12, 2009, 02:13 PM

dropping like that, he may have been hit in the spine.

Playboypenguin · February 12, 2009, 02:17 PM

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."

Sparks2112 · February 12, 2009, 02:20 PM

Cerick

Quote:

Dropping like that, he may have been hit in the spine.

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?

brentfoto · February 12, 2009, 02:20 PM

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.

ZeSpectre · February 12, 2009, 02:31 PM

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.

Sparks2112 · February 12, 2009, 02:35 PM

ZeSpectre

Quote:

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.

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.

jg0001 · February 12, 2009, 03:05 PM

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.]

Playboypenguin · February 12, 2009, 03:10 PM

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.

Hornett · February 12, 2009, 03:14 PM

Quote:

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.

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?

Brian Pfleuger · February 12, 2009, 03:15 PM

Quote:

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?

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.

Para Bellum · February 12, 2009, 03:15 PM

Quote:

I hope it (guard's gun) wasn't a .45.

me too. must have been a nine.

Playboypenguin · February 12, 2009, 03:26 PM

Quote:

me too. must have been a nine.

Maybe it was a Sig with a .22 conversion.

Sparks2112 · February 12, 2009, 03:29 PM

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.

Lavid2002 · February 12, 2009, 03:47 PM

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...

Double Naught Spy · February 12, 2009, 03:59 PM

The security guard was a retired cop. He fired one shot according to witnesses.

So this is a one shot stop, one shot drop, one shot kill. The guard drew from concealment and shot while on the move, while advancing toward the bad guy.

http://www.palmettocops.com/forum/fo...44499&get=last

jg0001 · February 12, 2009, 04:19 PM

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.

hogdogs · February 12, 2009, 04:40 PM

BAD SHOOT BAD SHOOT BAD SHOOT

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...

Brian Pfleuger · February 12, 2009, 04:42 PM

Quote:

In this case, the video seems like it could be used as evidence against the guard more than anything else.

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.

Double Naught Spy · February 12, 2009, 06:03 PM

I think 100% would be an underestimate.

Brian Pfleuger · February 12, 2009, 09:00 PM

Security guys gun looks Glock-ish to me, if I had to guess.

supergas452M · February 12, 2009, 09:23 PM

Quote:

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.]

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.

Marred · February 12, 2009, 09:44 PM

The security guard showed amazing restraint. He didn't shoot until the gun was pointed directly at him

I don't think I would wait that long. Hooray for the good guys

jg0001 · February 12, 2009, 10:50 PM

Quote:

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.

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.

February 12, 2009, 01:12 PM	#1
brentfoto Senior Member Join Date: August 20, 2007 Location: SoCal Posts: 362	Video of robber killed in Pharmacy holdup - One-shot stop? Caliber? http://www.wftv.com/video/18676583/index.html This should generate some interesting discussion. It's one of the most graphic videos of actual CQC I've seen. Someone else posted this video on S&W forum. Comments?

February 12, 2009, 02:10 PM	#2
Sparks2112 Senior Member Join Date: July 3, 2008 Location: Cincinnati, Ohio Posts: 479	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. __________________ -- Sparks AKA J.M. Johnston

February 12, 2009, 02:20 PM	#6
brentfoto Senior Member Join Date: August 20, 2007 Location: SoCal Posts: 362	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 by brentfoto; February 12, 2009 at 02:30 PM.

February 12, 2009, 03:29 PM	#15
Sparks2112 Senior Member Join Date: July 3, 2008 Location: Cincinnati, Ohio Posts: 479	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. __________________ -- Sparks AKA J.M. Johnston

February 12, 2009, 03:47 PM	#16
Lavid2002 Senior Member Join Date: April 6, 2007 Posts: 2,568	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... __________________ Math>Grammar

February 12, 2009, 02:13 PM	#3
Cerick Senior Member Join Date: May 13, 2008 Location: 973, NJ Posts: 345	dropping like that, he may have been hit in the spine.

February 12, 2009, 02:17 PM	#4
Playboypenguin Junior member Join Date: February 27, 2006 Location: Great Pacific Northwest Posts: 11,515	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."

February 12, 2009, 02:31 PM	#7
ZeSpectre Senior Member Join Date: June 4, 2007 Location: Shenandoah Valley Posts: 3,276	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.

February 12, 2009, 03:05 PM	#9
jg0001 Senior Member Join Date: October 24, 2007 Posts: 551	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.]

February 12, 2009, 03:10 PM	#10
Playboypenguin Junior member Join Date: February 27, 2006 Location: Great Pacific Northwest Posts: 11,515	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.

February 12, 2009, 03:59 PM	#17
Double Naught Spy Senior Member Join Date: January 8, 2001 Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX Posts: 12,717	The security guard was a retired cop. He fired one shot according to witnesses. So this is a one shot stop, one shot drop, one shot kill. The guard drew from concealment and shot while on the move, while advancing toward the bad guy. http://www.palmettocops.com/forum/fo...44499&get=last __________________ "If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange

February 12, 2009, 04:19 PM	#18
jg0001 Senior Member Join Date: October 24, 2007 Posts: 551	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.

February 12, 2009, 04:40 PM	#19
hogdogs Staff In Memoriam Join Date: October 31, 2007 Location: Western Florida panhandle Posts: 11,069	BAD SHOOT BAD SHOOT BAD SHOOT 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...

February 12, 2009, 06:03 PM	#21
Double Naught Spy Senior Member Join Date: January 8, 2001 Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX Posts: 12,717	I think 100% would be an underestimate. __________________ "If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange

February 12, 2009, 09:00 PM	#22
Brian Pfleuger Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 25, 2008 Location: Austin, CO Posts: 19,578	Security guys gun looks Glock-ish to me, if I had to guess. __________________ Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley

February 12, 2009, 09:44 PM	#24
Marred Member Join Date: December 7, 2008 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 82	The security guard showed amazing restraint. He didn't shoot until the gun was pointed directly at him I don't think I would wait that long. Hooray for the good guys __________________ Guns don't kill people, the bullets do.