Clerk kills would-be robber who grabbed daughter

Originally posted by Jason88
reply to post by Jepic

 

If someone tried taking my kids, I wouldn't warn them... I'd just shoot as the element of surprise is key in confrontations. Compound that with a robbery and this man deserves no such warning (I'm not celebrating death, just the response to a kidnapping and robbery attempt). Good on this woman if the report is accurate.

A warning is the thing to do I'd say.

So many problems with warning shots... I can't believe some gun owners haven't really thought about this.

Issues:

1. Gun is a lethal weapon, firing a warning shot is lethal force. The courts and police will lock you up.

2. The bullets have to land somewhere, what if you she accidentally killed a motorist down the road? Courts will ding you there too, as the gun owner is responsible for every bullet discharged from the weapon.

3. If the situation is dire enough for you to apply deadly force, the warning shot, it's not dire enough for you to kill thereafter. Meaning, the courts will tear you apart by demonstrating the situation wasn't scary enough for you.

Human issues:

1. In split second moments why reduce your chance to save your child's life by warning the bad guy you're going to shoot him. Just shoot him to give yourself the most time and control of the situation - he started it remember.

2. Guns jam. What happens when you get that shot off, but can't shoot again?

3. You shoot to miss, he now shoots to kill. Why would escalate the violence only for it to be a bluff?

I'm sure there's other reasons to not fire a warning shot, but that's what I got off the top of my head.

Also, I think she fired at this leg so as to not hit her child, who he was carrying. Remember, people take revenge and if you shoot to disable, that person may come back for you.

Originally posted by Frogs

Originally posted by Jepic

I still think everyone should have a chance to correct their errors.
She had a few options.

1. A few shots through the air could have made him let go of her daughter.
2. A shot to the leg.
3. A verbal warning. "Let her go or I'll shoot you."

To kill a man is a desperate measure.

Actually, she took your #2 above. She shot him in the knee. Which usually would be enough to stop but not kill him.

So that leaves the question, what killed him? My guess either blood loss - but that would be weird because he was at the hospital. Possibly other injuries - its possible the guy that tackled him, the cops, or someone beat the stuffing out of him. He could have been high on something, had a heart attack, etc.

But, she did take your option #2. In most cases that isn't going to kill someone.

Now that I think of it, there isn't really a part in your body that guarantees your survival if you get shot. So she did do something right.

Good for pointing it out.

Originally posted by Jason88
reply to post by Jepic

 

Only pull out a weapon if you intend to use it - warning shots could have made the situation a lot worse, she took back control when she fired on him... besides a warning shot demonstrates the situation was not dire enough for her to have shot in the first place, and if this man lived, his prosecuting team would have had a field day with her warning shot. Bottom line, this ain't the movies and never ever fire a warning shot. Give a warning, if you like, but shoot to kill or disable - never ever to scare.

Then he can give me a field trip. I take a field day from the prosecuting team any day over the murder of a man.
At the end of the day, I'm gonna sleep well knowing that I saved my baby and avoided the death of someone.
My actions were honest and I'm prepared to let that be known to the kidnapper and his lawyers.

Originally posted by sonnny1
Its ALSO basic animal instinct.

It happens everyday in the Wild.

Animals Protect there young.

Do not get in the way of a mom protecting their children.

But we are intelligent animals. That makes us different from ordinary animals.
We have the ability to control our emotions and take decisions that normal animals can't reach.

reply to post by Jepic


I hear you, no one in their right mind wants to kill anyone and have that on their conscious. But that appears to be the key in these types of cases, the potential victim is "not in their right mind." Likely the victim is scared, confused, and angry... I actually applaud the clerk for her fast thinking action to save her child from being kidnapped.

Originally posted by Jason88
So many problems with warning shots... I can't believe some gun owners haven't really thought about this.

Issues:

1. Gun is a lethal weapon, firing a warning shot is lethal force. The courts and police will lock you up.

2. The bullets have to land somewhere, what if you she accidentally killed a motorist down the road? Courts will ding you there too, as the gun owner is responsible for every bullet discharged from the weapon.

3. If the situation is dire enough for you to apply deadly force, the warning shot, it's not dire enough for you to kill thereafter. Meaning, the courts will tear you apart by demonstrating the situation wasn't scary enough for you.

Human issues:

1. In split second moments why reduce your chance to save your child's life by warning the bad guy you're going to shoot him. Just shoot him to give yourself the most time and control of the situation - he started it remember.

2. Guns jam. What happens when you get that shot off, but can't shoot again?

3. You shoot to miss, he now shoots to kill. Why would escalate the violence only for it to be a bluff?

I'm sure there's other reasons to not fire a warning shot, but that's what I got off the top of my head.

Also, I think she fired at this leg so as to not hit her child, who he was carrying. Remember, people take revenge and if you shoot to disable, that person may come back for you.

You make very good and valid points, but I'm ready to go through the legal battle if it means saving my kid's and the person's life.

But I still want to give a few of my points.

1. It's very unlikely I will kill a bystander. Although it's true that it has happened. However it is a rare occurrence.
2. I have my reasons for firing the warning shot. If they are gonna lock me up for that, so be it.
3. I will tell the court I can control my fear and that a warning shot is the logical choice, in my book, if you intend to reach the best-outcome scenario (No lives hurt or lost).
4. Warning shots won't make me lose time to save my baby. I have legs and most likely will catch him or shoot him. He started it, but I'm not him. I'm not a criminal. I don't just kill.
5. It's unlikely for a well-maintained gun to jam.
6. I shoot to miss. That doesn't mean he will have enough time to avoid my second shot which will hit.

That is my defence.

But it is clear we have different mentalities. Both impossible to be changed.

Originally posted by Jason88
reply to post by Jepic

 

I hear you, no one in their right mind wants to kill anyone and have that on their conscious. But that appears to be the key in these types of cases, the potential victim is "not in their right mind." Likely the victim is scared, confused, and angry... I actually applaud the clerk for her fast thinking action to save her child from being kidnapped.

I also congratulate her for preventing her baby to be kidnapped. Star.

I would have blown the POS robber's head off.. I hope the law sees this as a classic case of justifyable homicide in self defense.

Getting shot in the knee. Or more accurately the back of the knee. Can easily kill you very quickly.

The popliteal artery is the extension of the superficial femoral artery after passing through the adductor canal above the knee.

If this man was excited, full of adrenaline, and facing away from her when she shot him in the back of the knee, she could have severed the posterior popliteal artery which is the extension of the femoral artery right behind your knee.

Bullets start to expand on impact and they gain jagged edges as they deform turning into a tunneling blender blade that chews up flesh and makes it ragged and torn. Arteries and Veins are rubbery and elastic so when one gets cut in half they tend to retract into the cavity of the body/part to near the closest "branch" that is still held in place by the capillary branches further in the tissue.

He could have been near death within 2-3 minutes of being shot. Average 10 minutes for an ambulance response from a 911 call. 5-8 minutes for the EMT's to discern his condition, apply compresses, put in a saline drip and choose which hospital to take him to. 10 minutes to travel to the hospital while his BP is dropping since in the time it took EMT's to arrive on scene he'd already lost about 70% of his blood and it is very reasonable that he was "effectively" dead within 5 minutes of being shot. Adding compression just slows the rate at which blood is lost, it doesn't stop someone from bleeding if any primary vascular tissue is severed. You are still bleeding out even with compression bandages applied.

I am not 100% sure but I don't think that EMT's can actually give a person blood while en route to a hospital. They give the person oxygenated saline to help keep the blood pressure up and to make sure the heart doesn't stop pumping due to low pressure.

I was taught in my concealed carry class that giving warning before shooting is the same as screaming "Help" under water when you are drowning.
It serves no purpose other than to make you feel like you are accomplishing something when you really aren't.

I believe she did the right thing. She was protecting her child from a threat, that would warrant a shot in my my opinion. I think her firing at the knee was meant to stop him not to kill him. I am happy that she and her child are okay, it's sad that it had to come down to violence, but the guy brought it upon himself by making poor decisions.

All this yammering on about warning shots is complete and utter BS! You're entitled to your opinions, but I'd like to take a moment to assure anybody that if you think firing warning shots is a tactically sound approach to a situation such as this, you are wholly mistaken, as any basic handgun self defense class will teach you.

Anyone who grabs the child of someone else and takes off has all ready shown their intent and played their hand. What do you think the bad guy had in mind for the little child, reading her some bedtime stories till she fell asleep so he could return her to mommy?

I swear, the utter stupidity of some people never ceases to astound me.

Originally posted by Jepic
This isn't good. She should have given a warning first. If she straight up shot him, that's messed up.

edit on 19-10-2011 by Jepic because: (no reason given)

You sir, are a TROLL. That's the only logical explanation. Because you can't possibly mean what you just said.
I guess you would allow a rabid wolf to run off with your baby as well ?
Ridiculous.

reply to post by Jepic


shooting into the air is one of the most foolish things one can do with a gun let alone in an urban center like it seemed like she was in,where do you people get this stuff if you pull a gun and intend to shoot it you point it at what you want to shoot not go firing blindly into the air i can think of only one case in us history where "covering fire" or shooting into anything but a target was rewarded and not punished and that was a one off time when a class 3 dealer was getting robbed.so please dont advise people that shooting into the air is a good idea kinda dangerious thinking process....oh and she did shoot him in the leg specifically the knee.General rule of thumb if you are going to mess with somethings "cubs" odds are mom or dad are gonna complicate your existence or end it

reply to post by Jepic


no once you start to chase it ceases to be self defence least in most cases thats what kinda got that shop owner in philly in trouble for shooting that guy (he chased his buddy outside then shot the other robber on the ground after the threat level was ended and thus he went to jail)and again warning shots not advised tends to screw u over in a legal case and you might kill an innocent human unrelated to the situation warning shot=bad

www.afn.org... The ONLY case i am aware of where covering fire was advised and not punnished but this guy isnt your typical american or even normal gun seller 3 clean shoots on his record helped him not go to jail or be punnished but in his last engagement he fired (possibly) more ammo then any american had fired to defend there home since the war of independence

reply to post by Jepic

you obviously don't have kids.

Originally posted by KilrathiLG
reply to post by Jepic

 

shooting into the air is one of the most foolish things one can do with a gun let alone in an urban center like it seemed like she was in,where do you people get this stuff if you pull a gun and intend to shoot it you point it at what you want to shoot not go firing blindly into the air i can think of only one case in us history where "covering fire" or shooting into anything but a target was rewarded and not punished and that was a one off time when a class 3 dealer was getting robbed.so please dont advise people that shooting into the air is a good idea kinda dangerious thinking process....oh and she did shoot him in the leg specifically the knee.General rule of thumb if you are going to mess with somethings "cubs" odds are mom or dad are gonna complicate your existence or end it

You are right. Shooting in the air is foolish as it could kill a bystander. But the chances are small and in that situation it is justified I think.

Consider this scenario, Jepic:

You yell warnings, bad guy doesn't stop, you fire two "warning shots", bad guy doesn't stop, you realize there's no choice left but to shoot him "for real", gun malfunctions (because sometimes they do), bad guy disappears out the door with your baby girl, you never see either of them again.

How's THAT gonna feel?

You wasted your chance to save your own child from a wild animal by giving that wild animal the "courtesy" of warning shots.

Get it?

Originally posted by KilrathiLG
reply to post by Jepic

 

no once you start to chase it ceases to be self defence least in most cases thats what kinda got that shop owner in philly in trouble for shooting that guy (he chased his buddy outside then shot the other robber on the ground after the threat level was ended and thus he went to jail)and again warning shots not advised tends to screw u over in a legal case and you might kill an innocent human unrelated to the situation warning shot=bad

But in this case the man is carrying the baby, so it is justified to chase him and get your baby back. In your case the shop owner deliberately shot the guy when he wasn't a threat to anybody in the shop anymore.

Originally posted by tjack
Consider this scenario, Jepic:

You yell warnings, bad guy doesn't stop, you fire two "warning shots", bad guy doesn't stop, you realize there's no choice left but to shoot him "for real", gun malfunctions (because sometimes they do), bad guy disappears out the door with your baby girl, you never see either of them again.

How's THAT gonna feel?

You wasted your chance to save your own child from a wild animal by giving that wild animal the "courtesy" of warning shots.

Get it?

You forgot the chase and kick-his-butt part but I completely understand you.