The Liberal Gun Club Forum

http://www.wokv.com/news/news/local/cus ... ead/nRLjK/

Instead of saving money at a Northside dollar store, a 57-year-old grandfather ends up saving the day.

The man was doing some late-night shopping at the Dollar General store on Dunn Avenue when all of the sudden, two men stormed in and tried robbing it.

Unfortunately for one of them, the man happens to have a concealed weapons permit, and Lt. Rob Schoonover with the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office says the man wasted no time springing into action.

"There was a citizen who had a concealed firearms permit that was inside the store as a customer," says Lt. Schoonover. "He fired at the suspect, striking him and killing him."

And a second story about this event:

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08 ... g-him?lite

I thought the cop said the most amazing thing:

"The citizen did not get shot, none of the employees were hurt, this worked out good tonight," [Lt.]Schoonover said.

I don't expect that kind of candor from LE.

gaucheGlock wrote:I thought the cop said the most amazing thing:

"The citizen did not get shot, none of the employees were hurt, this worked out good tonight," [Lt.]Schoonover said.

I don't expect that kind of candor from LE.

There are well over a million individuals licensed to carry here, and most cops here support that right. Most are pragmatic about the fact that so many people carry, and view it as a good thing.

I've also been told by several cops down here that anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 of the cars on the road in Florida have a legally owned, and legally carried firearm in them. Car carry here requires no licensing, provided certain criteria are met.

I'm all on board with firearm permits and stopping crime, but I don't consider it "saving the day" to fatally shoot someone in what seems to be a non-lethal situation. Not only did someone needlessly die, such non-discriminatory firing leads to more tragic tales in the future. Part of the point of concealed carry is deterrence.

Zagadka, we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

If someone comes into a store and points a gun at my wife's heart, I'm going to draw and fire on him. My only hope is that he directs his return fire at me, not her. I can't reasonably decide to restrain myself in the hope that he'll choose to be magnanimous and spare our lives after explicitly threatening to murder us for the paper in our wallets.

Remember, in that instance you the victim haven't chosen lethal force - that choice was thrust upon you. Your only choice is who is going to die. As simple and awful as it is, I will choose him over her, and I will do so in one second.

Now I deliberately voiced this in the context of defending a family member, since that's more likely to evoke a visceral reaction than self-defense. You and I weren't in that shop - the old man was. He made the call, and his gut told him to act. Is the robber's death a tragedy? Of course. Is it the fault of the old man? Absolutely not.

The criminals who conspired to commit this violent felony are wholly responsible for the death of their co-conspirator, and that's the point behind the "felony murder" rule in Florida.

It's a plain and simple fact that the dead robber will never again harm or threaten another person. He just ran out of chances, and the rest of us don't have to carry his burden any more, hoping against hope that he'll be reformed some day. There's no glee in the outcome - but there may be some relief.

gaucheGlock wrote:Zagadka, we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

...

Now I deliberately voiced this in the context of defending a family member, since that's more likely to evoke a visceral reaction than self-defense. You and I weren't in that shop - the old man was. He made the call, and his gut told him to act. Is the robber's death a tragedy? Of course. Is it the fault of the old man? Absolutely not.

Fair enough on agreeing to disagree, and in a provocative situation like you framed, I would also not hesitate, and I do not "fault" the old man. I can not really come out and condemn him because, as you mentioned, neither of us was present and this all played out in less time than it took me to decide to reply to your post. I didn't even know what I would reply with in the time lethal action could have taken place.

But as a responsible legal authority, I would not be as quick to label this a "good scenario" - it is a regrettable scenario. I am not familiar with the "Dollar General Store", but I can't imagine such a robbery was a big take with high stakes and hostages, and almost any time someone is fatally shot it is not a "good" scenario.

The legal position should be to acknowledge the fatality as someone NOT desired by anyone in the scenario. This wasn't a high risk situation. There were 3 people in the store - the civilian shooter and two employees. One employee was cowed by one of the robbers and the other was busy with the register.

A fatality is a regrettable conclusion to a tragic and desperate act of crime. Fatalities should rarely be touted as fortuitous, even when it is a bad guy who gets creamed.

There is a very good reason that pretty much every legal and law enforcement source I've seen says to just let a forceful robbery happen. Most of the time it is covered by insurance and robbers are eventually caught by law enforcement. Civilians are not encouraged to fight back, especially in such a low-risk situation. Every retail and similar job I've worked has explicit instructions to let a robbery happen.

Stupid people play stupid games and win stupid prizes.

I feel bad for the robber's family. The robber, not so much.

As soon as the robber introduced the gun into the situation he made a bad choice.

Too often robbers will shoot the clerks after they hand over the money.

In my opinion once the "bad guy" has introduced a weapon (gun or knife) he has forfeited the right to polite discourse.

Once a "bad guy" introduces a weapon into the scenario then the only choice is to shoot. And if you are going to shoot, then you shoot to kill, not to try and incapacitate. The "bad guy" made a choice, and with that choice comes consequences.

Ultravox wrote:As soon as the robber introduced the gun into the situation he made a bad choice.

Agreed with the rest of your comment, given this premise... but I can't find any place in the two articles where it says the robbers had a gun. So either the premise does not hold or I suck at reading comprehension today.

Zagadka wrote:This wasn't a high risk situation. There were 3 people in the store - the civilian shooter and two employees. One employee was cowed by one of the robbers and the other was busy with the register.

While I (another "old man" by you chaps' definition) agree that it's better to give the asshole the money and get him out the door, I have to take exception to failing to recognize this as a high risk situation. An armed robbery is extremely high risk, dynamic, and unpredictable.

With very rare exceptions, armed robbery is a desperate dumbshit's crime. It has a hugely steep consequences to take ratio; the last time I looked the average haul was something like $63 dollars while the penalties are severe and the chances of injury or death to the robber exceed any other crime. The few armed robbers who aren't inherently stupid are mean bastards that get off on the victim's fear reactions and the danger. (They're the ones that toss in a little kidnap and rape to spice things up.)

The former sort can convert in an instant and start shooting. The latter likely intends to.

An armed robbery is, by definition, high risk.

lemur wrote:

Ultravox wrote:As soon as the robber introduced the gun into the situation he made a bad choice.

Agreed with the rest of your comment, given this premise... but I can't find any place in the two articles where it says the robbers had a gun. So either the premise does not hold or I suck at reading comprehension today.

ARMED:

According to the report, the customer -- a 57-year-old grandfather -- and two store employees were inside the Dollar General store Monday around 9 p.m. when two armed men entered the store with the intention to rob it.

lemur wrote:

Ultravox wrote:As soon as the robber introduced the gun into the situation he made a bad choice.

Agreed with the rest of your comment, given this premise... but I can't find any place in the two articles where it says the robbers had a gun. So either the premise does not hold or I suck at reading comprehension today.

If in the course of a robbery you say you have a gun, you have a gun. Most state statutes include "displayed or implied" verbiage. Just saying it, pointed finger in a jacket pocket, or a nickel plated Model 29 pointed at the clerk's face - it doesn't matter.

lemur wrote:

Ultravox wrote:As soon as the robber introduced the gun into the situation he made a bad choice.

Agreed with the rest of your comment, given this premise... but I can't find any place in the two articles where it says the robbers had a gun. So either the premise does not hold or I suck at reading comprehension today.

The second article said "two armed men".

KVoimakas wrote:

lemur wrote:

Ultravox wrote:As soon as the robber introduced the gun into the situation he made a bad choice.

Agreed with the rest of your comment, given this premise... but I can't find any place in the two articles where it says the robbers had a gun. So either the premise does not hold or I suck at reading comprehension today.

ARMED:

According to the report, the customer -- a 57-year-old grandfather -- and two store employees were inside the Dollar General store Monday around 9 p.m. when two armed men entered the store with the intention to rob it.

Thanks. I suck at reading comprehension today.

lemur wrote:Thanks. I suck at reading comprehension today.

You just need another cuppa.

But I am curious. Did the 'Old guy' (he is a young'un in my 72 year old eyes)get what he came for at the Dollar Store?

Sad but as some of you have said, there are consequences for every action you take.

One of the few things in FL that are good. Not only is the shooter protected for the shooting but is held innocent in civil action(someonje correct me if i have that wrong).

paul

dbluefish wrote:One of the few things in FL that are good. Not only is the shooter protected for the shooting but is held innocent in civil action(someonje correct me if i have that wrong).

paul

100% right.

SwampGrouch wrote: While I (another "old man" by you chaps' definition) agree that it's better to give the asshole the money....

Seriously. Fifty-seven is old? Well, shit.

SumGuyontheInternet wrote:

gaucheGlock wrote:I thought the cop said the most amazing thing:

"The citizen did not get shot, none of the employees were hurt, this worked out good tonight," [Lt.]Schoonover said.

I don't expect that kind of candor from LE.

There are well over a million individuals licensed to carry here, and most cops here support that right. Most are pragmatic about the fact that so many people carry, and view it as a good thing.

I've also been told by several cops down here that anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 of the cars on the road in Florida have a legally owned, and legally carried firearm in them. Car carry here requires no licensing, provided certain criteria are met.

Well personally my attitude is "I support the police". Most of them anyway. And in a situation where a cop may need a hand and I happen to be there, my attitude is again, to support the police. So I would hope that they would support the idea of civilian's who carry as I think most of us share this attitude. That's why it REALLY FUCKIN PISSES ME OFF when I get a FUCKING speeding ticket.