Interesting Robbery Shootout with IPSC Grandmaster

[smince]

we spend too much time demanding someone "do something" and not enough time contemplating whether that action would actually help the situation.

Seems this is where a lot of the gun laws we are always fighting against come from.

[Daugherty16]

Lots of talk about he should have done this, or shouldn't have done that.
IMHO, the man got angry and didn't stop to evaluate. He saw enough to know his client/manuf. rep had been robbed, got mad, and he stomped the gas. I doubt anyone who isn't bulletproof would make that decision rationally -especially knowing he only had a 5 shotter and was going up against 4 armed BG.

Evaluated in the cold light of day, he was completely wrong, even if not acting outside the law. The actual crime was already over when he became aware of it. He should have been a good witness. If there was any question about the condition of his sales rep, his witnessing should have been done AFTER checking on his friend, since the BGs were already leaving and the imminent threat (to him) was going away. It is very clear that his actions precipitated the gunfight.

That said, i am glad he is ok and no innocents were hurt. He made a huge tactical mistake up front, but acquitted himself well enough to still be alive, even though undergunned. Unless you've been in real life Close Quarters Combat, and i have not, i don't think a single one of us should question why he didn't gun those guys down. He didn't freeze, and he didn't die, and if he missed them i'll bet the BGs still needed new underwear afterward. And one other thing - afterward they might have been much more reluctant to brandish guns, perhaps saving the life of someone else like Thalheimer at another place.

So, God bless him. Hope he isn't so rash the next time, or shoots straighter. Something tells me he will do both.

[k31]

heat of the moment kind of thing
i have found in life it is simply a matter of you did or you didnt. weather it is right or wrong there isnt much else other than what was done. weather it was right or wrong is his opinion. not even jail time will change what he did or didnt do. the way i see it is that it was rash but to a point helpful. he identified the fact that there wer multiple drivers and getaway cars. as well as slowed down the getaway. again right or wrong aside it did slow them down. the extra drive time and not seeing second getaway vehicles would make it an even harder case to work. he also got a point across to would be thieves. some folks dont put up with bull c@#p, even if it gets them in trouble too.i dont see his store getting hit within the next year either.worse things have been done with the best intent possible.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Actually the http://armedamericanradio.org/ link Pax posted has a great interview with Mr. Thalheimer that sheds some new light on the topic.

According to the interview, saw the men going TO the robbery, presumed they were there to target the jewelry salesman and decided to ram them as they came back through - assuming that his 3/4 ton Dodge would disable their vehicle and that he could back up and drive away.

He estimated the distances as about 25ft for the first shot at the man exiting the disabled car and 35yds to the second vehicle.

He also discussed his belief that the four men were wearing body armor as he feels certain he hit the first man and there were no bullets found in/on the wall behind that man.

Lots of good information in the link, and you can listen to the interview via podcast as well.

[bds32]

I listened to his interview and I think it is pretty clear that he knew exactly what was going down even though he did not witness the actual robbery. He knew about Columbian robbery teams hitting jewelry salesman. He saw them coming, masked up, stopping at the jewelry store, and then attempting to flee the scene a moment later. He didn't know if the salesman had been harmed or if anyone else had. He made a split second decision to try and stop them with his 7,500 truck. I applaud that. All of this talk of him reacting out of anger or wanting to be hero is nonsense. There is no time for any of that. As an LEO, I've rolled up on or observed crimes in progress with no advance warning. Your actions in those situations are instantaneous without a lot of real thought process, at least initially. Most of the thinking takes place long before hand and hopefully includes some training. If this guy Sandy had a warrior mindset coming in to it, which I think he did, that was the guiding principle for his immediate decision to get involved. Had he not gotten involved, I wouldn't have denounced him for it for some of the reasons stated in this thread. However, I don't think its right to dump on the guy for getting involved. I think its more appropriate to say "I wouldn't have gotten involved in this set of circumstances because of...."

[Double Naught Spy]

According to the interview, saw the men going TO the robbery, presumed they were there to target the jewelry salesman ...

Actually, he said this explicitly in the original link you posted.

Why the guy saw the on the way to do their robbery and waited for them to come out so that he could ram them and then didn't have his own gun ready really is mind boggling.

i dont see his store getting hit within the next year either.worse things have been done with the best intent possible.

No, it may not be hit, per se. They may consider it safer to just torch the man's business, after hours, when no confrontation is likely.

[StrongSideArmsInc]

Well as long as we are offering stupid speculations on the state of the country extrapolated from a single incident, I would propose that the country is in such a sorry state because we spend too much time demanding someone "do something" and not enough time contemplating whether that action would actually help the situation.

Considering that doing nothing would result in the same outcome but with fewer negatives for Mr. Thalheimer, I think you are mistaken to dismiss it as a viable option.

Hey Mr. Roberts, pick up your weapon and follow me. I will teach, you will learn by the numbers. When your grandson is sitting on year knee in the near future, you won't have to tell him that you shoveled **** in Texas, that you made a difference, you did the right thing. You won't have to tell him you didn't stand there and die while contemptplating your actions, and their effect on the starving kids in Uganda. You summed up the of the state of the Union when you wrote a statement like "not enough contemplating." Give me a break, really?? The same outcome would have occurred?? Seriously? These scum bag dirt balls will seriously think next time about doing this crap again, probably even keeping them from robbering you while your disecting the next law enforcement involved shooting. So inturn, he saved your life and others. You need to seriously to take a long look at history, and how this country was formed. The sacrifices made by great people in order for you to sergate opinions about a guy defending himself and others from low lifes. You make me sick, :barf:

[Double Naught Spy]

The sacrifices made by great people in order for you to sergate opinions about a guy defending himself and others from low lifes. You make me sick,

Sorry, but I have no idea what "sergate" means. Even so, whatever sacrifices folks might have made in the past that allows us to be able to express opinoins has nothing to do with the validity, correctness, or obligation to act in this manner.

Attacking people who are not attacking you and not attacking anyone else isn't self defense.

This reminds me of those folks who claim that they were attacked by animals, but when the events are made known, it was the people who were hunting and trying to kill the animal that acted in self defense against its attackers.

You may consider the guy's actions heroic, but being heroic doesn't mean that his actions were smart or appropriate.

In the grand scheme, I really don't have a problem with the guy doing what he did to prevent the theft of valuables from the standpoint that such roberies can destroy a person's life. That was his call to make. However, at the time he did what he did, he had no knowledge as to whether or not the perps actually had any stolen property. He certainly didn't know if any of the property potentially taken was his or not. Putting his life on the line to prevent the loss of possible property that may not even be his isn't smart from a self defense perspective and certainly may be questionable from legal and civil liability perspectives. Not only that, but it probably wasn't smart from a financial perspective either. He is going to be out hundreds or thousands of dollars in truck repairs alone. His insurance isn't likely to pay for the damages to his vehicle because he intentionally wrecked it.

These scum bag dirt balls will seriously think next time about doing this crap again, probably even keeping them from robbering you while your disecting the next law enforcement involved shooting. So inturn, he saved your life and others.

Yep, they will think twice and refine their plan such that should somebody attempt to intervene in the future, they will have a better solution in mind for handling the problem. Next time, they may come with more people, more cars, and better firepower.

Given that the guys were potentially gang members and had a pretty good plan for the robbery, to believe that Thalhiemer's actions will preclude them from doing this in the future show an alarming naiveté.

So just what percentage of experienced criminals like these do you think will go straight after being involved in a single gun battle? If they were gang members, then this incident will no doubt bolster their reputation with their peers and likely confirm to them they they are good enough at what they do that they can handle dealing with such a threat and still get away with the goods.

Unless one of the criminals dies as a result of injuries suffered in the event, Thalhiemer's actions probably won't change a thing in the future in regard to saving lives.

[JohnKSa]

Hats off to the guy for doing something, all you people in the forum that would have done nothing, your exactly the reason why the country in the current state that it is.

This forum was founded to foster the "discussion and advancement of responsible firearms ownership". That principle is inconsistent with the idea that "doing something" is a good idea/commendable even if it's not legal or prudent/responsible.

This guy just scored big points for the pro gun crowd and your ripping him down because your a *****.

This forum requires that members get their points across without insulting those who disagree and without using language that "would be inappropriate in the polite company of strangers".

...I see you as part of the problem and a target.

I sincerely hope that I'm misunderstanding your meaning here.

When I saw what happen in Arizona and in Destin, Florida, I was so disappointed that no one had a CCW to stop these horric acts on innocent people. After reading this thread, I imagine now that there were people with CCWS just sitting there saying, "well it's not my issue."

The fact is, there was a CCW present at the Arizona shooting but he prudently determined that it would be unwise to draw and fire into the crowd so he took action but without using his firearm.

Hey Mr. Roberts, pick up your weapon and follow me. I will teach, you will learn by the numbers. When your grandson is sitting on year knee in the near future, you won't have to tell him that you shoveled **** in Texas, that you made a difference, you did the right thing.

Your implication that every crime scenario can be solved or should be solved with a weapon is alarming and, again, is not consistent with the "advancement of responsible firearms ownership" and therefore not consistent with the principles upon which this forum was founded.

I have to say that I'm disappointed to see how many people apparently believe that the desire to see criminals "get what's coming to them" is sufficient justification for use of deadly force even under circumstances where it might be illegal or unwise.

[flyboyjake]

this crime was not resolved or attempted to be resolved with the use of a weapon. He used his truck to try to prevent them from getting away. When they opened fire on him, his gun came out. Why the @#$@^ do you people keep alluding that he went in guns blazing to stop a robbery? I know you all have better critical thinking skills than this. I am beginning to think many of you are arguing just to argue, ignoring the facts of the topic.

I would never ask any of you to get involved if someone were stealing from my home (though I assure you, I would get involved for you) but I sincerely hope if I were being shot at from thugs in a car, you would return fire for me. If your answer to that is "let me think about it for a while...its really not my problem" then I fear America is in worse shape than I thought...

[smince]

Based on the interview on the link, I'd suggest that Mr. Thalheimer learned very little from this encounter (if anything at all). I got from it is that he thinks not being far from a 1911 will solve any future problems.

[smince]

this crime was not resolved or attempted to be resolved with the use of a weapon. He used his truck to try to prevent them from getting away. When they opened fire on him, his gun came out. Why the @#$@^ do you people keep alluding that he went in guns blazing to stop a robbery? I know you all have better critical thinking skills than this. I am beginning to think many of you are arguing just to argue, ignoring the facts of the topic.

The 'firefight', possibly endangering innocent lives, would never have happened if he hadn't felt compelled to 'do something'.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Why the @#$@^ do you people keep alluding that he went in guns blazing to stop a robbery?

I am guessing that most of us presume that ramming a car of 4 Colombian armed robbers specializing in jewelry heists has a high probability of leading to a gunfight amd we assume Mr. Thalheimer shared that presumption.

[Sarge]

Originally Posted by jake

I am beginning to think many of you are arguing just to argue, ignoring the facts of the topic.

Find a cure for THAT and all the threads on TFL would be 7-10 replies long, literally oozing useful information. Wouldn't that be a shocker!

I'm inclined to agree with your perspective on the negative social consequences that result when good folks turn a blind eye to mayhem occurring right under their noses. The murder of Kitty Genovese is the contemporary example of this. The citizens of Northfield, Minnesota took a different approach, during a bank robbery some 87 years previous.

The decision to 'get involved' is a personal one and certainly not one I would try to make for you- but anybody with a heart can tell which one of those events they would rather have been present at.

[Capt. Charlie]

This thread's been interesting from the beginning, and there's certainly food for thought here.

However, after 140 posts, it's clear that opinions are seriously polarized and tempers are frayed. When members stop debating the idea and start attacking the poster, and when they think that attempts at profanity will somehow enhance their position, it's time for the referee to step in and end it.

With apologies to the OP, closed.