Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Robbery foiled by armed employee

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    23

    Robbery foiled by armed employee

    .
    Last edited by mik253; 10-23-2016 at 12:43 AM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member tombrewster421's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Roy, WA
    Posts
    1,329
    There's no question that his life was being threatened. He should have just shot him, then the would be robber couldn't try this on someone else. Now who knows where this guy is?
    Guns don't kill people, bullets do!

  3. #3
    69Charger
    Guest
    Another good reason every one should get together at your local Night Out event tonight, and talk with your neighbors. With budget cuts looming, and the THREATS from our politicians to decrease the numbers of police officers, we need to be able to take care of ourselves. If need be.
    Good for the good guys.
    Dave

  4. #4
    Regular Member jt59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Central South Sound
    Posts
    1,025

    Just my opinion

    That seems to be in the NMJM (not my job, man) catagory.

    Shooting a fleeing BG in the back after the threat had clearly stopped would likely have been a bad call and certainly would have had a different report from Mark (Fulgum). Although it would have been cool to get him down on a citizen arrest until the LEO's showed, he did exactly the right thing....if nothing else, the cockroach went back to the hive and is telling all is BG pals what went down. That alone may make them think twice about armed citizens and if the juice is worth the squeeze the next time the try to pull a stunt like this.



    Quote Originally Posted by tombrewster421 View Post
    There's no question that his life was being threatened. He should have just shot him, then the would be robber couldn't try this on someone else. Now who knows where this guy is?
    Last edited by jt59; 08-03-2010 at 04:10 PM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Tacoma, WA, ,
    Posts
    886
    Once the criminal is in the flight-mode, and the danger has passed, to re-engage/chase/shoot at/etc... the suspect may turn the tables of who is in the position of attacker/attackee. At that point, should you be presenting deadly force towards him, the attacker may well be justified in using the same against you.

    Once it's over, it's OVER... Don't do anything stupid to make it last any longer than it needs to. You could try yelling "Stay on the ground!" while alerting police, and if he sticks around and lets you hold him at gunpoint, good. But don't be surprised if he doesn't listen to you. Get a good description, license plate numbers, etc... and report the incident to the authorities.

    And hopefully the idiot will spread the word that people are getting more difficult to jump. "Some people even got GUNS!"

    -G20

    PS: Anyone else notice that this OCer did not have his gun taken, as so many anti-OC people suggest happens during a crime?

  6. #6
    Regular Member tombrewster421's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Roy, WA
    Posts
    1,329
    Quote Originally Posted by jt59 View Post
    That seems to be in the NMJM (not my job, man) catagory.

    Shooting a fleeing BG in the back after the threat had clearly stopped would likely have been a bad call and certainly would have had a different report from Mark (Fulgum). Although it would have been cool to get him down on a citizen arrest until the LEO's showed, he did exactly the right thing....if nothing else, the cockroach went back to the hive and is telling all is BG pals what went down. That alone may make them think twice about armed citizens and if the juice is worth the squeeze the next time the try to pull a stunt like this.
    Yeah, I agree that shooting him in the back would be a majorly bad idea but I'm sure that the BG did not have his back INSTANTLY turned to the victim. If the victims assumptions were right about the BG having a gun then he might not have had the time to see if the BG was going to run or not. All I'm saying is that I don't think I would have hesitated to find out if he was going to run.
    Guns don't kill people, bullets do!

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran ak56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Carnation, Washington, USA
    Posts
    748
    Quote Originally Posted by G20-IWB24/7 View Post
    Once the criminal is in the flight-mode, and the danger has passed, to re-engage/chase/shoot at/etc... the suspect may turn the tables of who is in the position of attacker/attackee. At that point, should you be presenting deadly force towards him, the attacker may well be justified in using the same against you.

    Once it's over, it's OVER... Don't do anything stupid to make it last any longer than it needs to. You could try yelling "Stay on the ground!" while alerting police, and if he sticks around and lets you hold him at gunpoint, good. But don't be surprised if he doesn't listen to you. Get a good description, license plate numbers, etc... and report the incident to the authorities.

    And hopefully the idiot will spread the word that people are getting more difficult to jump. "Some people even got GUNS!"

    -G20

    PS: Anyone else notice that this OCer did not have his gun taken, as so many anti-OC people suggest happens during a crime?
    G20, I agree with your post, except I have a problem with your PS.
    Where does the story say he was OC?
    Last edited by ak56; 08-03-2010 at 05:05 PM. Reason: can't spell

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Tacoma, WA, ,
    Posts
    886
    Quote Originally Posted by ak56 View Post
    G20, I agree with your post, except I have a problem with your PS.
    Where does the story say he was OC?
    It didn't. I could be wrong, but I would be surprised because....

    Armored vehicle technicians open-carry their weapons when in uniform. I'd be surprised to find out that the guy was not in uniform, as that would seem a reasonable requirement to show up to the job (in uniform) as to prevent people from trying to sneak in to the building under the pretense of being an employee.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    As much as I wish that it was legal to shoot someone who threatens your life, regardless of whether they are in the act or fleeing, it is not a good idea to shoot someone when they are fleeing. My argument for shooting them while they are fleeing is for public safety, but like I said, that would be hard to justify under the current RCW.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  10. #10
    Regular Member SargentMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington, United States
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by G20-IWB24/7 View Post
    It didn't. I could be wrong, but I would be surprised because....

    Armored vehicle technicians open-carry their weapons when in uniform. I'd be surprised to find out that the guy was not in uniform, as that would seem a reasonable requirement to show up to the job (in uniform) as to prevent people from trying to sneak in to the building under the pretense of being an employee.
    I work armed patrol security. I'm in uniform with a full duty belt including my Glock. I know that I am, by definition, open carrying, but I don't really see it being the same as when I OC in street clothes.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Tacoma, WA, ,
    Posts
    886
    Quote Originally Posted by SargentMac View Post
    I work armed patrol security. I'm in uniform with a full duty belt including my Glock. I know that I am, by definition, open carrying, but I don't really see it being the same as when I OC in street clothes.
    Well, its not the same, but it is. In this situation, were it to come to light that the Loomis guard was actually in uniform (including sidearm) then it would be a very stupid criminal who 'robs' a guy who has a gun visible on his hip and doesn't make taking the sidearm the first item of business. Same goes for someone who is able to sneak up behind an armed guard or LEO. One of the age-old arguments against OC is that it makes the person MORE of a target than normal, and the bad guy will just take the OCer's gun and use it against them. In this instance, there is a great possibility that that theory has been shown to be wrong.

    If he was in street clothes, and CCing, then I just wasted a bunch of typing on a theoretical situation that never happened. Either way, the BG still ended up with a stain in his pants. Good guys 1, BG 0.

    -G20

  12. #12
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by Sylvia Plath View Post
    As much as I wish that it was legal to shoot someone who threatens your life, regardless of whether they are in the act or fleeing, it is not a good idea to shoot someone when they are fleeing. My argument for shooting them while they are fleeing is for public safety, but like I said, that would be hard to justify under the current RCW.
    Sylvia instead of saying it would be hard to justify, as a citizen you would not be able to justify as you stated it is not allowed by State law (unless one was acting under the direction of an Officer).

    On the other hand an Officer in certain circumstances would be within State Law

    9A.16.040.
    (2) In considering whether to use deadly force under subsection (1)(c) of this section, to arrest or apprehend any person for the commission of any crime, the peace officer must have probable cause to believe that the suspect, if not apprehended, poses a threat of serious physical harm to the officer or a threat of serious physical harm to others. Among the circumstances which may be considered by peace officers as a "threat of serious physical harm" are the following:
    (a) The suspect threatens a peace officer with a weapon or displays a weapon in a manner that could reasonably be construed as threatening; or
    (b) There is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed any crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm.
    Under these circumstances deadly force may also be used if necessary to prevent escape from the officer, where, if feasible, some warning is given.
    Last edited by BigDave; 08-03-2010 at 08:06 PM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    38
    My 2 cents: If he's holding a knife to my throat when I turn and can draw he better have already started running.. I don't know that my brain is not going to fear for my life...

    Tough call if not in the shoes at the moment...

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran OlGutshotWilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Snohomish, WA, ,
    Posts
    435
    This statement:

    The employee turned as if to hand the robber his keys. Instead he drew his own gun and pointed it at the robber, who ran off on Yakima Avenue.
    Gives the impression that the robber was still facing him with the knife in hand when the victim pulled his gun.

    As they say, timing is everything. Once he turned to run you are SOL.
    THE SECOND AMENDMENT: Washington didn't use his right to free speech to defeat the British, he shot them.
    ---------------------------------------------
    Government is not reason; it is not eloquent -- it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
    --George Washington,
    first U.S. president

  15. #15
    Regular Member 1Grizzly1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Layton, Utah, USA
    Posts
    54
    I would disagree that if his back is to you he is no longer a threat. It depends on the situation. If the would be robber had used a firearm instead of a knife I would certainly see him as a threat no matter what direction he was facing. He could just be running for cover only to turn and shoot once it was reached. To use a blanket statement that once an attacker's back is to you you are SOL is completely incorrect. It's easy to sit here and critique the situation but each and every one is different.

  16. #16
    Regular Member jt59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Central South Sound
    Posts
    1,025

    Good discussion

    Well, of course, in the scenario that you are describing but in this thread, it is mostly oriented to the specific's of the crime that was perpetrated. Good points on the difference between use of DF in the same scene from a LEO vs Citizen and the law. I think that there are very good perspectives from the contributors on this discussion. At least for those that are involved it is clear that there is some pretty good thinking afoot about how one might best react in any one of these situations. As always, you can have a high level of situational awareness, but when it starts to go down, things can change in a hurry toward the good ending or the bad.....you just have to keep your wits about you. When you decide to drop the hammer (and it is a decision), your life just took a serious left hand turn from the right hand lane.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Grizzly1 View Post
    I would disagree that if his back is to you he is no longer a threat. It depends on the situation. If the would be robber had used a firearm instead of a knife I would certainly see him as a threat no matter what direction he was facing. He could just be running for cover only to turn and shoot once it was reached. To use a blanket statement that once an attacker's back is to you you are SOL is completely incorrect. It's easy to sit here and critique the situation but each and every one is different.
    Last edited by jt59; 08-04-2010 at 10:16 AM.

  17. #17
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by jt59 View Post
    Shooting a fleeing BG in the back after the threat had clearly stopped would likely have been a bad call
    From the article:

    The employee turned as if to hand the robber his keys. Instead he drew his own gun and pointed it at the robber,
    If the employee had "pointed it at the robber, and fired, there would be no issue of "bad call" would there?

    As it is, the "employee" ran the risk of having the gun taken from him. He was in jeopardy from the knife. When he had the opportunity he should have ended the threat, permanently.

Posting Permissions

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