Interesting Robbery Shootout with IPSC Grandmaster

[Glenn E. Meyer]

However, T and T isn't about how your emotions play out. It's about what is the sensible action and techniques.

We all feel outrage about this and that. I could expound on the causes of crime - that's not T and T.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by micahweeks

Really? How easy my job would be if Memphis business owners felt that way. Or Mississippians for that matter. I could just resond to a call and sit in my patrol vehicle until it's over then go write a report! And everyone would thank me for not being so foolish as to try and defend their stuff!

Your a cop. It's your job.... though I don't expect you to shoot people for my stuff either. You are SUPPOSED TO interrupt robberies. You are SUPPOSED TO be ready for violence. You are TRAINED to respond and have the AUTHORITY to do so.


Some dude who happens to be in the area and decides to ram a vehicle can not reasonably be compared to a police officer responding to a robbery call.

[Rifleman1776]

He was reasoning with his gonads.
He is lucky to still be alive.

[TailGator]

I can understand the frustration that comes from seeing evil doers get away. But I haven't read any posts on here that says they hope the bad guys get away scott free. Arguing against that position is a straw man argument. The question at hand is, were valid tactics used?

If I understand the situation correctly, the jewelry store owner saw the robbers accost a person delivering jewelry to his store. It would seem that he was not even financially responsible for the merchandise at that point. Although he was justifiably outraged at seeing an acquaintance robbed of their possessions, the robbers had someone else's stuff in their hands and were leaving. No lives were at risk at that point. He had no dog in this fight except his own sense of justice.

He chose to ram their car, thus escalating the situation to the point of gunfire. If an earlier post on this thread is correct, he also took shots at a range of at least 35 yards with a snubby revolver. All this took place in a shopping center, presumably with other people around at that time of day. I have to wonder, too, if the 35-yard shots were across a road with traffic passing by.

I am not advocating charges against this guy, but he put a lot of people, including himself, at unnecessary risk. Only blind dumb luck prevented casualties among passersby. This is not a responsible use of a firearm. This is not just a matter of "let the insurance company cover it," as some on here have said. It is a matter of making a responsible decision to value one's own life and the lives of innocent bystanders over material possessions. He did not do that. He let his anger, as justified as it might be, override good judgment and the safety of those around him. That is vigilantism, not tactics.

Bad call. Very bad.

[markj]

He more than likely reacted without thinking the whole thing thru.

If they were being delivered and not recieved then they are still the property of the company bringing them and I bet they have insurance.

I would find it very hard to shoot someone that took property from me. It doesnt hurt me physically, so it cannot be a threat to my personal well being so no gun play or jail time is on the horizon, this is my way of thinking, I would smile and wave as they drove off writing down the plate number and as much info on the guys as I could.

My super man costume is on the fritz......

[KLRANGL]

He chose to ram their car, thus escalating the situation to the point of gunfire.

I'm not so sure that is a valid argument. Ramming someones car doesn't escalate a situation into a gunfight (but it can put you a lot closer to being in one). The gunfight was really started by the robbers, when one brandished a weapon at the store owner. I'm not saying the store owner was right in his actions, but I think in his mind he didn't think he would have to be in a gun fight when he made the decision to ram the car.

I'm pretty sure that in most jurisdictions, it is lawful to use a certain level of force to recover stolen property (I don't know for sure, because I never plan on doing that). But taken in that context, it is possible that the store owner thought he was using a reasonable amount of force (ramming the car) to prevent people from stealing property.
Unfortunately, at that point, it turned into a gunfight, but you can't blame the store owner for starting the gunfight. Just being reckless enough to put himself in a situation that had a higher chance of one happening...

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by markj

He more than likely reacted without thinking the whole thing thru.

Originally Posted by krangl

I think in his mind he didn't think he would have to be in a gun fight when he made the decision to ram the car.

That's the crux of the problem right there.

He either:

A)Didn't think it through; or

B)Thought it through and thought it was OK.


Really, he's sort of doubly wrong either way.

Personally, I believe that when we choose to carry a gun, we have a real responsibility to think about the implications of our decisions LONG before we are actually in a position to make them.

So, if (A), he fails for not thinking it through ahead of time, if (B), he fails for thinking it through and believing his actions were appropriate.

One of the reasons why I believe this forum to be so valuable is because it gives each of us the ability to think these things through without having to be there. I believe there is a MUCH higher probability of doing the right thing if you have thoroughly considered the implications beforehand.

[youngunz4life]

I will make the point that he probably doesn't care what you all think about his decision. Personally, I wouldn't have made the decision grandmaster(if I have that right) did. Its probably been easy for him to look back and realize what he should've done and/or what he would do if the same situation happened again.

[gew98]

If he hit 5 perps and got his merchandise back would some of us armchair commandos think differently ?. I'd wager some would.

[Slamfire]

Great guy, the sort you want covering your back,

but he

rammed his truck into another vehicle. Be interesting to find out if his insurance company covers the damage.

Fired shots and missed!. If he had hit the bad guys, they might have sued him.

If they had hit him, he would be in a world of hurt, and who is going to pay his medical bills?

He had a lot to lose over a property crime, and I suspect, he is going to lose a lot.

I wish him luck.

[jimbob86]

Wise?

No.

Kudos to him, though.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Nope, I'm not going to let surface emotions generate kudos from me for a basically flawed action.

[flyboyjake]

Perhaps im mistaken...Many of you appear to charge this man with the responsibiliy for starting the gunfight. To this effect I would submit the chicken or the egg test. was he the one who should be held accountable for starting a gun fight (I sincerely doubt its what he wanted, especially with a 5 shot gun)? All he did is pursue and stop the men. To my knowledge, they fired first... Can we go back a step and say it was the criminals fault for robbing the gun store? Or go back further still and say it was his fault for opening a jewely store?

If you separate the gunfight from the pursuit, I think you may see things differently. If a man stole my VCR, I would never use deadly force and shoot him in the back. Its both legally and morally wrong to me, however, I wouldn't hesitate to deliver a cold clock to the back of his head and retrieve my property. If he decides to pull a gun on me, now deadly force is in the picture.

Thalheimer is niether smart nor stupid for his actions. There was a risk and he accepted it. I would have probably followed the car, but there is risk to that too as they fly down the expressway at 120mph. I am sure he has his regrets, but there will always be something you wished you had done differently.

I am not a gun toting hard liner. I think in the perfect situation, he would do a few things differently, but overall, I commend him for taking action. I contend that it is not his fault they decided to shoot at him.

Id love to see the lawsuit of one of those criminals were they actually hit by a bullet...

[armoredman]

The wounded criminal would most likely win. Why? The ORIGINAL criminal act was concluded. The law will likely not look as this individual acting to prevent a crime, but in revenge of a past action, an illegal act in itself. This changes the legal perspective to the point that the original criminal actors may now lay claim to self defense! I am not a lawyer, but with my reading into past shootings and from experts in the field such as Ayoob and Marshall, if someone HAD been injured/killed due to his actions in this confrontation, I dare say he would find himself in very hot legal water.
I agree that we are all frustrated about criminals getting away scot free, and relying on insurance to cover losses. I have good insurance, but I have items that I put a good amout of time and effort into that wouldn't be the same if just replaced by the insurance company, and BTW, most insurance is NOT "replacement cost", but "actual cash value", which is a LOT different - check your policies. However, this does not allow vigilantism or any other actions that abrogate law enforcment powers upon yourself illegally, unless you REALLY want to be that test case. I work in prison - I have no desire whatsoever to live here.

[Coop de Ville]

Glenn,

I did not mean to imply that if you don't bullhead into a bad situation then you are a coward... Just saying that some people run this way and some that way. When someone caps off a few rounds here in the hood, half the rookies duck behind the cruiser and the other half take a few steps towards the gunshots...

Maybe I mis spoke. It's not so much personality but instinct or reaction.

Another point. Are we condemning his actions because they may be illegal or because they are wrong.... Legal and right are often dissimilar.

And, as for the argument of putting himself in harms way... No matter how much we espouse saving our own skin... Some people really aren't afraid of dying.

I am glad we are able to discuss this scenerio. Even though it happened it seems to be a much more realistic scenerio than most

[Hiker 1]

IPSC shooting and IDPA are games. Not tactical common sense scenarios.

Exactly.

[Coop de Ville]

IPSC shooting and IDPA are games. Not tactical common sense scenarios.

Exactly.

I agree. But training is training. And you know that some people are just living for that moment to make it happen.

We all say, I hope the moment never comes, but really.

We are all waiting for it... in some respect or another.

-Coop

[Rufus T Firefly]

I would in no way participate in that scenario. First, he is not obligated to act. He is no longer a "reluctant participant" in the situation. He became an aggressor. Open to a civil suit by law.

So for his efforts, he has a banged up truck that the Insurance Company will not pay for. He will have lawsuits from the perps relatives. He will have to justify why he used lethal force in court.

It stinks, but the laws are against him. The little title of hero that the newspaper gives him will not be worth crap at the bank where his defense fund is set up.

He violated the first rule of self defense. You need to be in danger or required by law to render assistance to a victim. No, he was a cop wanna be.

I am sure one of the bad guys will enjoy living in his house when he loses everything in a court civil suit.

Stay safe....

[Rufus T Firefly]

It makes me wonder how many people would take action like the guy did and not know the legal ramifications of what the guy did.

God help us that we all think first before we act with the force that we have been given.

I personally are not required to be a hero. I am required by our law to help an injured person or a person that visually is in danger of great bodily harm.

Let the bad guy go. The Police are obligated to catch him, not me.

[TeamSinglestack]

Legally: Bad move.
1. Intent to cause him great bodily harm or death?
A. Hard to justify in court.
2. Ability to achieve intent?
A. 4 vs. 1, certainly.
3. Immediate need to use deadly force?
A. Again, hard to justify in court.

Conclusion: Failure on 2 of 3 elements that could justify the use of deadly force in court.

Tactically: Bad move.
1. Outnumbered.
A. Could have been fixed in position by fire while baddies move to position of greater advantage.
2. Out gunned.
A. 5 rounds vs. 4 baddies is NOT something I would initiate with. Defend with? Sure, as it's better than a fist.

Conclusion: Tactical failures too numerous to list.

All in all, good initiative (eliminating criminals), poor judgment (Lack of legal authority and poor conditions).

My .02c. Worth everything you paid for it...



Edited: Format

[flyboyjake]

Armmoredman, I would disagree to the notion that the criminal act was done. Please remember he did not shoot at them because they stole his stuff...He shot at them because they shot at him. If they opened fire on him, and he shot them, I am confident no legal recourse would come to him unless he lived in new Jersey or a similar state. The man did not run and start a gunfight, he ran to retrieve his property, and they shot at him. Id hate for you all to be a jury of my peers if it came to that...Maybe im just bullheaded and stubborn (ive been called worse) but this is cut and dry for me...

call me crazy or stupid, but id like to think that if each and any of you all were being shot at, and I could easily distinguish the BG vs the GG...id come to your aid with all the firepower I had available. Thats not me running my mouth off because I love guns and want to use them. Thats me standing up for what I believe is right.

[Lokpyrite]

All I can say is too bad he didn't kill any of the walking feces.

[JohnKSa]

Pretty impressively bad judgement.

First of all he intentionally rammed another vehicle. Besides what that does to your insurance, it is also illegal. My guess goes along with what stephen426 says--intentionally ramming an occupied vehicle would qualify as assault with a deadly weapon.

Given that he initiated the confrontation that led to the gunfight, had they killed or injured him I suspect that they could have legally claimed self-defense. Had he killed or injured one of them it's likely that he would not be able to self-defense as Vanya and Doc Intrepid correctly point out. In fact, he may be open for a charge of attempted murder or at least some more charges of assault with a deadly weapon.

All he did is pursue and stop the men. To my knowledge, they fired first... Can we go back a step and say it was the criminals fault for robbing the gun store? Or go back further still and say it was his fault for opening a jewely store?

He initiated the confrontation by assaulting them with his vehicle. A person in that situation could very well be legally justified in firing at the ramming driver in self-defense.

The answer to your other questions is that he probably can't legally try to tie all the events together all the way back to the initial robbery. Once the criminals left the scene, the initial confrontation was probably legally over. The second confrontation was initiated by the store owner when he rammed the vehicle of the robbers. Initiating a confrontation can definitely hinder your ability to claim self-defense.

I don't know what the law in FL is, but unless it allows the use of force to retrieve stolen property then he's very lucky he's not in jail. TX does allow the use of force and even deadly force in some circumstances to retrieve stolen property depending on a number of criteria. However I don't believe this situation would not qualify even in TX since he didn't actually witness the robbery and couldn't verify that the crime that resulted in the property being stolen was a crime that qualified for the use of force or deadly force.

His final mistake is running off his mouth. By admitting that he didn't even actually see the crime but rather took action because he "became suspicious of masked men speeding in his parking lot" he may eliminate his last shred of a chance at legally justifying his actions.

[Ben Towe]

We all say, I hope the moment never comes, but really.

We are all waiting for it... in some respect or another.

That's the most truthful post I have ever seen on this forum. Thank you Coop.

"Sometimes doin' the right thing ain't doin' the right thing."-Sgt. Hondo Harrelson

[flyboyjake]

"His final mistake is running off his mouth. By admitting that he didn't even actually see the crime but rather took action because he "became suspicious of masked men speeding in his parking lot" he may eliminate his last shred of a chance at legally justifying his actions."

I agree to this.