There's not alot of information made public yet other than robber pulls gun, robber demands money, robber gets shot and dies because his potential victim had armed himself that night.
How predictable. His father comes forward and says he'd never shoot anyone, and just needed money to support his girlfriend and kid. Pathetic.
Kind of a sad thing really.
There are a lot of folks having a hard way to go of it and I wish his father had just taught him work ethic and honesty so we did not even have to talk about it.
There is a real issue with the folks from the hood and far too many of them see criminal activities as the only path to get ahead.
I know a few are going to disagree and ay he was just a lazy punk, but IMHO he was TAUGHT that behavior and this is the net result of it.
His kid grows up without a dad, the cycle repeats. His family is sad, the shooter may well have some issues trying to deal with it etc.
I am certianly glad it was the criminal and not the victim and I hope the message rings clear throughout the land that folks are taking up arms, stop robbing and start working!
John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."
Doesn't have money for food for his girlfriend and kid, but he has enough for a revolver and ammo? Give me a break.
Glad the scumbag is gone, and even more glad a CCW holder did the right thing by defending himself and giving our cause much-needed positive publicity.
I feel for people who are having hard times making ends meet. However, I can't feel sympathy for them if they are going to rob and hurt others in order to get their money. If you are going to commit illegal violence against others, you may lose your life and that's the way it has to be.
I would much prefer people like this to join the drug trade if they are going to do something illegal. At least those they are associated with are all in agreement with their involvement in the activity and their is no direct victims of their transactions. If they need money and hurt othes though, I would want them to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the laws. At least if the man was selling drugs, he would be working for his money.
Meh, another place that was quite nice and safe 15 years ago but has now become another crime-hole. Good riddance to bad rubbish....
Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."
One of these days, these "thugs" will get the hint. We ain't playing any more.
I will not agree with you all the time, deal with it. CASE CLOSED.
Where was the dads checkbook when his son needed to support his girlfriend and child?? this most likely wasn't the first stick up for this young man . Good Riddance Robbing someone at gunpoint isn't usually someones first wrong decision, what he has gotten by with up to this last bad decision has probably made him Brazen enough tograduate into armed robbery..The Good Lord smiled on St. Louis Missouri that night ! the good guy got to go hometo his family.
deepdiver wrote:I have heard it call Hazelhood several times within the last year...Meh, another place that was quite nice and safe 15 years ago but has now become another crime-hole.
Good self-defense shooting.
The robbee recovered effectively--after apparently some poor SA. I hope he's OK.
Good for him. Good for all gun carriers.
Man justified to shoot robber, Hazelwood police say
By Denise Hollinshed and Kim Bell
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
Thursday, May. 06 2010
HAZELWOOD â€” A man with a concealed-carry permit appeared to be justified when
he shot and killed an armed robber on a street here, police said Wednesday.
Christopher Holland, 20, died grasping a .38-caliber revolver after the
confrontation about 8:40 p.m. Tuesday, Police Chief Carl Wolf said. It happened
in the 3700 block of Dunn Road, near Cortena Drive.
Investigators will present their findings to the St. Louis County prosecuting
attorney's office for review.
They also will perform ballistics tests to determine whether Holland was the
robber who fired shots that missed during a struggle with another street holdup
victim nearby the week before.
Wolf said the evidence supports the explanation of a 57-year-old man from the
area that he fired Tuesday night after Holland took his wallet at gunpoint and
was rifling through it. The robbery victim was not hurt. His name was not
"Unluckily, I guess, the deceased picked on the wrong person," the chief
suggested. "When we found him, he was laying on the ground with the gun in his
hands and his finger on the trigger."
Holland lived in the 5700 block of Pamplin Avenue in St. Louis. He died of two
gunshot wounds, one in the side and one in the back.
Wolf said there was a spent round in the dead man's Tiger revolver. It will be
checked against a slug recovered from a robbery attempt last week outside the
Serenity Circle Apartments, he said. In that incident, a resident was exiting
his vehicle when a gunman approached. They struggled, and the robber fired
several shots and ran.
Tuesday night's victim told police he was out for an evening walk and usually
carries his .40-caliber Glock semiautomatic pistol because of previous problems
He said Holland approached from behind, put a gun to his back and demanded
money. As Holland looked in the wallet, its owner pulled his own weapon from
its holster and told him to drop his gun and get on the ground. The man told
police that Holland started to point his gun at him so he opened fire. Holland
ran across the street and fell down a hill, where he died.
His body landed near the front door of Georgia Baker, 78, of the 1300 block of
Eagles Way Court. She said she heard something but didn't think much of it
until she saw a man lying outside. "He was laying flat on his back by the time
I saw him so I'm assuming he died instantly," she said.
Baker said she heard three shots but some neighbors said they heard more. She
said she did not know the victim or Holland.
Another neighbor, Richard Garger, 71, said, "A lot of the neighbors heard the
shots and a few came out." He added, "I came out about a half-hour later to put
the dogs out. There was police all over the place and it was already roped off."
He said it's not unusual to hear shots in the area. "The night before, I heard
a shotgun blast, which I knew was not a backfire but a shotgun blast," he
explained. Still, he said, "It's a pretty secure and safe place to live. It's
just one of those things that happened.
"What are the odds that two guys with guns are walking down the street?" Garger
asked. "It's like the old West."
like the old west my ass.
The robber was shot in the back and side?
Sounds like the wounds do not match the story.
Well the cops now have 2 guns to try to match to the bullet found at the scene of anothr previous stick up, that may hold definite information if a match is found..
Side/back/toe/ear/ if I can prove you had my wallet and held me at gunpoint at the same time, it probably wouldn't look like a picture perfect scenario either..Time will tell.
If me or my home were assaulted and I felt compelled to use armed force, I can see why I would shoot someone in the back during this confrontation. For all I know, they are moving to a postion to either regroup for another assault, or to attack me while better defended themselves. I don't know what their intentions are involving their movement, nor am I going to take time to think about it in most cases.
In this case, it sounds like it was quite up close and personal. Did the suspect swing, miss and turn as the victim shot him? Were they grappling while armed? Was the suspect trying to retreat with the victim's property in hand?
I don't know, but I am not going to give the benefit of the doubt to anyone who chooses to inflict harm on another peaceful citizen who had meant them no harm.
I'm new to guns, but I thought that shooting in the back was bad. It might show that imminent danger was over.
MK wrote:Now that I said that, MK, THANK YOU for the words. If we all remember them, that might negate shooting someone in the back.If me or my home were assaulted and I felt compelled to use armed force, I can see why I would shoot someone in the back during this confrontation. For all I know, they are moving to a postion to either regroup for another assault, or to attack me while better defended themselves. I don't know what their intentions are involving their movement, nor am I going to take time to think about it in most cases.
Exactly, bugeater. If someone is just facing the wrong way but still retains control of an instrument of deadly force (aka a firearm), it's a reasonable assumption that that person is moving to a different position before resuming said deadly force and your would (in a reasonable person's mind) be justified in defense of self and innocent thirds.
Now if the person drops the weapon, that's another story. Even for cops. Google "police rules of engagement." If they aren't immediately threatening deadly force, then deadly force is not justified as a response.
My location says I am from Sierra Vista, AZ which is where I live now but I actually lived in MO for 26 years! So please stop telling me I don't know what I'm talking about when I post in the Missouri forum!
Would anyone like to guess where I am standing?