Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: ATM customer with a carry permit takes down robber in KC.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Bluefield, West Virginia, USA
    Posts
    100

    Post imported post


  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    A bank customer shot a robber after an armed confrontation in a Kansas City parking lot Saturday.The robber was wounded in the head and was in stable condition at a hospital, police said.
    The shooting happened about 9 a.m. when a man and a woman were in a car using the automated teller machine at the Bank of America at North Oak Trafficway and Barry Road.
    They were robbed at gunpoint, but as the gunman walked away, the man in the car got out armed with his own gun, said Sgt. Chris Lantz of the department’s robbery unit.
    The man yelled for the robber to stop. When the robber turned around and pointed his gun, the man fired at him, hitting him in the head, Lantz said.
    At the scene Saturday, investigators were collecting evidence from a dark sedan parked next to the ATM. An object that looked like a handgun was lying on the pavement. Nearby were apparent bloodstains.
    Police interviewed the couple and witnesses.
    The robbery victim had a permit to carry a concealed gun, Lantz said. Under the circumstances, Lantz said, that would not matter because he could legally carry the weapon in his car.
    No criminal case has been presented, and authorities are waiting to see whether the patient recovers, said Jim Roberts, spokesman for the Clay County prosecutor’s office.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Panama City, Florida, USA
    Posts
    107

    Post imported post

    Wow. I do not think I can even imagine how I would feel if I had my wife with me and someone pointed a gun at us.

    Wow.

    Scary world.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    I wonder what the guy was carrying or where the robber was hit that he's in stable condition with a shot to the head. Good for that guy for having the balls to go for a head shot though.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Dr.Coy wrote:
    Wow. I do not think I can even imagine how I would feel if I had my wife with me and someone pointed a gun at us.

    Wow.

    Scary world.
    I can somewhat imagine how I would feel. Besides the sinking feeling in my stomach from fear that she would be injured, I would be so angry with the SOB who threatened her life that in a perfect world I would rip off the arm he used to hold his gun and beat him to death with it.

    Actually I am more worried about my ability to effectively use lethal defense if my family is with me than if I am alone. I tend to get very calm and deliberate when faced with crises, however, I'm not sure how the anger I would feel at someone threatening the lives of my family would effect that. By myself I feel extremely confident stressed (my advanced handgun instructor asked me how it is that I shoot better under stress) but I am concerned that with them there I would be overly aggressive or overly cautious and not be as effective.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote:
    Dr.Coy wrote:
    Wow. I do not think I can even imagine how I would feel if I had my wife with me and someone pointed a gun at us.

    Wow.

    Scary world.
    I can somewhat imagine how I would feel. Besides the sinking feeling in my stomach from fear that she would be injured, I would be so angry with the SOB who threatened her life that in a perfect world I would rip off the arm he used to hold his gun and beat him to death with it.

    Actually I am more worried about my ability to effectively use lethal defense if my family is with me than if I am alone. I tend to get very calm and deliberate when faced with crises, however, I'm not sure how the anger I would feel at someone threatening the lives of my family would effect that. By myself I feel extremely confident stressed (my advanced handgun instructor asked me how it is that I shoot better under stress) but I am concerned that with them there I would be overly aggressive or overly cautious and not be as effective.
    Let's hope you don't ever have to find out, bud.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    11

    Post imported post

    If the robber walks away and he shoots the robber in the back, is it legal? Because there is no intent to harm?

  8. #8
    Regular Member VAopencarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    The 'Dena, Mаяуlaпd
    Posts
    2,147

    Post imported post

    aloe wrote:
    If the robber walks away and he shoots the robber in the back, is it legal? Because there is no intent to harm?
    No, generally speaking (laws vary by state) you need to be in fear of your life or serious bodily injury. Someone walking or running away from you no longer poses a threat. There are some states that allow for protecting property with deadly force.
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Manassas, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    399

    Post imported post

    VAopencarry wrote:
    aloe wrote:
    If the robber walks away and he shoots the robber in the back, is it legal? Because there is no intent to harm?
    No, generally speaking (laws vary by state) you need to be in fear of your life or serious bodily injury. Someone walking or running away from you no longer poses a threat. There are some states that allow for protecting property with deadly force.
    Make sure you check out your state laws though - we aren't lawyers here.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    aloe wrote:
    If the robber walks away and he shoots the robber in the back, is it legal? Because there is no intent to harm?
    Welcome to the forum!

    I've never heard of a state where such would be legal for defense of person. I've heard of at least one state where one can shoot to protect property.

    As the others mentioned, check the law in your state.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    I'll probably get creamed for it, but I have to ask the wisdom of engaging after the initial encounter a man who is armed with a gun while your wife is close.

    I'm not arm-chair quarterbacking so much as I'm glad the opportunity came up to think about it.

    The crook's leaving. You demand he stop. He turns fast and fires. A gun fight breaks out. Your wife gets hit. Or, you go down, and your wife is open for revenge.

    Unless she says, "Gimme the carbine, honey! I'll take his right flank!"

    I think I'll make it my policy to get the heck out of dodge if I've got somebody with me. Heck, even if I don't, I think the most I'll do is follow at a distance, birddogging for the police. It just doesn't make sense to me to1)risk having to shootanother human beingunless I really, really, have to; 2) risk a wrongful prosecution; 3) risk a civil suit fromhis family.

    There is the moral issue of letting an armed predator free to prey and possible injure or kill another person; but I'm wondering if I'm morally obligated to risk myself. I can hear the press howling "vigilante" already. Toss in an anti-gun prosecutor, or an unsypathetic or swayed jury, orsensational press. Hmmmmm. Tough call.

    Then there isthe wholesituational awareness question. Withalertness andany luck, I'll be flooring the accelerator beforehe initiatesaggression.

    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    I'll probably get creamed for it, but I have to ask the wisdom of engaging after the initial encounter a man who is armed with a gun while your wife is close.

    I'm not arm-chair quarterbacking so much as I'm glad the opportunity came up to think about it.

    The crook's leaving. You demand he stop. He turns fast and fires. A gun fight breaks out. Your wife gets hit. Or, you go down, and your wife is open for revenge.

    Unless she says, "Gimme the carbine, honey! I'll take his right flank!"

    I think I'll make it my policy to get the heck out of dodge if I've got somebody with me. Heck, even if I don't, I think the most I'll do is follow at a distance, birddogging for the police. It just doesn't make sense to me to1)risk having to shootanother human beingunless I really, really, have to; 2) risk a wrongful prosecution; 3) risk a civil suit fromhis family.

    There is the moral issue of letting an armed predator free to prey and possible injure or kill another person; but I'm wondering if I'm morally obligated to risk myself. I can hear the press howling "vigilante" already. Toss in an anti-gun prosecutor, or an unsypathetic or swayed jury, orsensational press. Hmmmmm. Tough call.

    Then there isthe wholesituational awareness question. Withalertness andany luck, I'll be flooring the accelerator beforehe initiatesaggression.
    Those are good questions and thoughts. I re-read the story and note that without a diagram of the area it is hard to determine if there was continued risk. Also, the fact that the BG "walked" away instead of "running" makes we wonder if the couple were still at risk and perhaps had to pass by him again or if perhaps he were in a position where he could have harmed them as they tried to drive away. The fact that the BG was walking and not running indicates to me a great amount of audaciousness and experience in such criminal enterprises.

    Your questions and comments do point out how very situational these matters are and how very difficult it can be even after the fact, let alone in the heat of the moment, to evaluate the correct course of action. I don't think any of us, unless we have experienced combat or a self-defense shooting situation, can begin to say exactly what we will do. Certainly we fall back to our training, however, there are numerous situational variables from environmental to physical to mental to emotional that come into play. I do enjoy these type discussions and the multitude of input as I see it as a form of mental training that may one day save my life or the life of a loved one through a decision to act or even not act based on one of the scenarios we have discussed.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    661

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    aloe wrote:
    If the robber walks away and he shoots the robber in the back, is it legal? Because there is no intent to harm?
    Welcome to the forum!

    I've never heard of a state where such would be legal for defense of person. I've heard of at least one state where one can shoot to protect property.

    As the others mentioned, check the law in your state.
    In AZ you can threaten to use deadly force or use deadly force to stop one of many felonies. A Bank robbery would qualify as one (justified use of deadly foce 13-1704, burglary in the second or first degree under section 13-1507 or 13-1508)

    So then what is First or second degree burglary?

    13-1508. Burglary in the first degree; classification

    A. A person commits burglary in the first degree if such person or an accomplice violates the provisions of either section 13-1506 or 13-1507 and knowingly possesses explosives, a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument in the course of committing any theft or any felony.

    B. Burglary in the first degree of a nonresidential structure or a fenced commercial or residential yard is a class 3 felony. It is a class 2 felony if committed in a residential structure.

    Therefor in AZ it would be a legal justification for to threaten to use or to use deadly force in such a situation. Regardless of whether he was faciing you or away from you.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    374

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    I'll probably get creamed for it, but I have to ask the wisdom of engaging after the initial encounter a man who is armed with a gun while your wife is close.

    I'm not arm-chair quarterbacking so much as I'm glad the opportunity came up to think about it.

    The crook's leaving. You demand he stop. He turns fast and fires. A gun fight breaks out. Your wife gets hit. Or, you go down, and your wife is open for revenge.

    Unless she says, "Gimme the carbine, honey! I'll take his right flank!"

    I think I'll make it my policy to get the heck out of dodge if I've got somebody with me. Heck, even if I don't, I think the most I'll do is follow at a distance, birddogging for the police. It just doesn't make sense to me to1)risk having to shootanother human beingunless I really, really, have to; 2) risk a wrongful prosecution; 3) risk a civil suit fromhis family.

    There is the moral issue of letting an armed predator free to prey and possible injure or kill another person; but I'm wondering if I'm morally obligated to risk myself. I can hear the press howling "vigilante" already. Toss in an anti-gun prosecutor, or an unsypathetic or swayed jury, orsensational press. Hmmmmm. Tough call.

    Then there isthe wholesituational awareness question. Withalertness andany luck, I'll be flooring the accelerator beforehe initiatesaggression.
    A couple of thoughts. . . .

    I've thought about similar scenarios. I believe that I would have acted in much the same way. In the Old West, it was considered cowardly to shoot a man, even an armed man, in the back. Thus, by calling out to the perp, and getting him to turn around, you solve that problem, and also lessen the risk of getting charged with anything, because he is now pointing his gun at you.

    You mention that the perp might "turn fast" and fire. For all practical purposes, you can ignore that possibility, because unless he's within 5 feet, he's almost certainly going to miss.The possibility thatan average criminalwould be thinking about tactical stance and proper aiming isnonexistent. We all know how often cops miss, and they typically are already facing and observing the suspect before they open fire.

    Also, the story says that the people were IN their car. It's harder to maintain situational awareness inside a vehicle, because of support pillars, engine noise, etc.

  15. #15
    Regular Member demnogis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    912

    Post imported post

    The BG had committed the crime, robbery in the first degree. The LAC (law abiding citizen) who was robbed told the man to stop. The BG turned, pointed a weapon at him (again), and the LAC fired.

    If the same situation had occurred with a LEO, the BG would have been shot in the back. If the BG turned with even a gun in his hand, the BG would have been shot.\

    I do think the man was justified. He did what was right (even if it wasn't 100% legal) in defending himself and his wife. Sure we're speculating, but what if he came back? What if he demanded their car? What if he shot the wife, then left? Too many what-ifs in such a situation, but the response was appropriate - better to not find out, IMHO.

    The only thing I would say though... is not in the head! You can take out a lung or a kidney (something the BG has 2 of) if you do have to open fire. But if he dies, it's now manslaughter on your hands if things don't pan out in your favor.

    Nobody will enjoy blood on their hands.
    Gun control isn't about guns -- it is about control.

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Ogden, UT, ,
    Posts
    258

    Post imported post

    so wait... is it ok what he did???

    The robber was walking away, the threat stopped and was leaving... The vic. got out yelled at the robber to get him to face him then shot him

    I could only assume he could not get his gun from his position in the car, but he got out of the car and pursued the robber...

    I don't know if what he did was ok. Thoughts..

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Follow up story:

    http://www.kansascity.com/115/story/735834.html
    By GLENN E. RICEThe Kansas City Star Clay County authorities on Tuesday charged a 17-year-old who was shot in the head after he allegedly tried to rob a couple Saturday at a Northland automated-teller machine.
    Christian D. Johnson of Gladstone was charged with attempted first-degree robbery. He was also charged with first-degree robbery in connection with a separate holdup at a convenience store earlier Saturday.
    The bond for Johnson, who remained hospitalized Tuesday, was set at $100,000.
    According to court records, the attempted robbery at the ATM occurred about 9 a.m. Saturday. Johnson was shot in the head by his alleged intended victim outside a Bank of America at North Oak Trafficway and Barry Road.
    Johnson is accused of trying to hold up two people at gunpoint at the machine, court records said. As he was leaving, his victim got a gun from his car and ordered the robber to stop. Johnson allegedly pointed his gun at the robbery victim, who then fired at Johnson, court records said.
    Clay County Prosecutor Daniel White said no criminal charges are being considered against the 61-year-old man who shot Johnson.
    “It’s clear from the statement he gave police that the victim felt his life — or his wife’s life — was at risk,” White said. “He only fired when Johnson turned back toward him, gun in hand.”
    “The shooting appears completely justifiable,” he said.
    White said Johnson survived the gunshot and is expected to be released from an area hospital by the weekend.
    Authorities said that before the attempted ATM robbery, Johnson allegedly held up the Pour Boy gas station in the 4200 block of North Oak Street Trafficway.
    Just before 7 a.m. a gunman walked into the store, paced the aisles and then brandished what appeared to be a handgun. The clerk gave money to the gunman, who then fled, court records said.

    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Houston, Texas, USA
    Posts
    63

    Post imported post

    Dahwg wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    aloe wrote:
    If the robber walks away and he shoots the robber in the back, is it legal? Because there is no intent to harm?
    Welcome to the forum!

    I've never heard of a state where such would be legal for defense of person. I've heard of at least one state where one can shoot to protect property.

    As the others mentioned, check the law in your state.
    In AZ you can threaten to use deadly force or use deadly force to stop one of many felonies. A Bank robbery would qualify as one (justified use of deadly foce 13-1704, burglary in the second or first degree under section 13-1507 or 13-1508)

    So then what is First or second degree burglary?

    13-1508. Burglary in the first degree; classification

    A. A person commits burglary in the first degree if such person or an accomplice violates the provisions of either section 13-1506 or 13-1507 and knowingly possesses explosives, a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument in the course of committing any theft or any felony.

    B. Burglary in the first degree of a nonresidential structure or a fenced commercial or residential yard is a class 3 felony. It is a class 2 felony if committed in a residential structure.

    Therefor in AZ it would be a legal justification for to threaten to use or to use deadly force in such a situation. Regardless of whether he was faciing you or away from you.
    Texas Penal Code, Chapter 9, Section 9.41:
    Code:
    § 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY.
     (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
     (b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
     (1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
     (2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.
    The Texas Penal Code is an interesting read for use of force with regard to property. Look at chapter 9 for all the affirmative defenses.

    Disclaimer: IANAL. Speak with your own attorney about what the penal code means.

    http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/pe.toc.htm

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    11

    Post imported post

    Things I dont understand. Imagine you are the BG,

    someone shouts at you to freeze or stop, will you turn your head back and look back over your shoulder in a super cool poise or in reality you will turn your whole body back. you setup a situtaion in which you may have to fire. when you turn around you see someone pointing a gun a t you. you will pee in your pants or be so scared and so crazy that you lift your gun to fire back.

    Now back to us being the "victims".When the Bg turned back,I hope in this case, my reflexes are fast enough to fire before his gun come up. which is why I brought up the question of shooting in the back.

    But what if the BG start running away? Ok to fire?

    If I'm that guy and I get back home and after having my wife crying in relief, she will probably grab the skillet and boing my head shouting, "what the hell were you thinking just now!! He had a gun!! Either shoot him in the back or let him go, why did you make him turn around?!?!?"

    well thats fictional becasue I'm not married, but what my fictional wife said sounds sensible?

    Looking at what the Texas codes say, "intangible assets", perps at atm will make you draw the max and give it to them. thats $300 max for me. Living on a tight budget, $300 is 3 months food for me. Or one full month of bills excluding rent.

    Is $300 worth a man's life? of course not. Not to sound vilgilante, but if I had a gun and let the BG get away only to spend the next month or two worrying about how to pay bills, then whats the use of getting a gun?

    At the current moment, I'm saving up to get a gun. Learning how to shoot is one thing, Knowing when to shoot or not and the consequences is another.

    Just updated my profile, I'm in Las Vegas





  20. #20
    Regular Member demnogis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    912

    Post imported post

    I couldn't make the judgment call for anyone else on whether or not it's right to take another person's life in that situation, I could only answer for myself, and I would have fired, but not at the BG's head. :? I believe the purpose of deterring crime is to set precedence for other criminals that their opportunities are becoming more scarce, and that their actions may carry lethal consequences.

    aloe wrote:
    [...] Is $300 worth a man's life? of course not. Not to sound vilgilante, but if I had a gun and let the BG get away only to spend the next month or two worrying about how to pay bills, then whats the use of getting a gun?

    At the current moment, I'm saving up to get a gun. Learning how to shoot is one thing, Knowing when to shoot or not and the consequences is another. [...]
    Gun control isn't about guns -- it is about control.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    460

    Post imported post

    Not that it's not that important, but the $300 max from ATMs went away a long time ago. I know that I can withdraw as much as $1200 at any one time (maybe more, I haven't checked in a while). I'm at Bank of America, too.

    What I know is that as the story reads, the shooter is absolutely within the law, and within the accepted use of deadly force, even with the criminal walking away. HE was the one who made the decision to risk his life for however much money he got, not the victim. Once he turned back to face the victim with a gun still in his hand, he became fair game, in the eyes of the law, and in my eyes.

    What I don't know is what I would have done in his place. Justified or not, it's a hell of a thing to kill a man. I suppose it would depend entirely on what I was feeling at that moment. If still felt threatened, I might do what he did. If I felt something else, I think I would probably just get the hell out of there. That would probably have been the safest course of action, especially since his wife was in the car.

    Of course if it was me, and MY wife was with me, there's every possibility that while he was concentrating me and trying to get me to withdraw all my money to give him, that she would draw HER weapon and shoot him herself.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •