Woodbridge clerk becomes robbers' worst nightmare...

[video=youtube;duVPOR4BKeU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duVPOR4BKeU[/video]

http://www2.insidenova.com/news/201...e&shorturl=http://insidenova.com/ar/715968 /

"Refused to be a victim." They got that part right!

The media is starting to show a little bit less negative bias.
Didn't even mind the reference to his "packin' heat" so much.

No charges filed - as it should be presuming the report is accurate.
Hope he has another gun though, cause he will be awhile getting that one back.

Love it!

"That makes it hard for guys in my line to get what I call, quality health care."

This story has just about everything right. Take a look again at the beginning of this video... those two reporters, especially the second guy, seemed to be almost bursting at the seams to be reporting this story. The only thing missing is the identity of the criminals, and who wants to lay odds they're from Maryland?

Who knows... maybe these folks across the river are finally starting to "get it".

Anybody know the name of that gas station? We oughtta start buying gas there. Guy said his boss encouraged him to carry!

TFred

TFred said:

Guy said his boss encouraged him to carry!

TFred

Click to expand...

He's carried for 4 years -ever since his former boss encouraged him to get a gun.

Hope that his current employer isn't like so many pizza companies - that would disappoint me greatly.

Well of course he won't be charged. Prince William County is fortunate to have as its commonwealth attorney, Paul "Butch" Ebert. This gentleman is a no nonsense prosecutor who is on our side and thank God for that.

Wow that is a fantastic finish! Well done to the clerk!

Interesting side note. My father in law carries a glock 26. When he carries he feels it better NOT to have a round in the chamber. When I asked him why he said he didn't want to have an accidental discharge. Fair enough but when IT hits the fan he may not have enough time to rack a round before its too late. Also under stress some may get hung up with the mechanics. I'll show him this clip and maybe he will rethink his position...

Any other comments you have I will be glad to share with him.

Mtam said:

Wow that is a fantastic finish! Well done to the clerk!

Interesting side note. My father in law carries a glock 26. When he carries he feels it better NOT to have a round in the chamber. When I asked him why he said he didn't want to have an accidental discharge. Fair enough but when IT hits the fan he may not have enough time to rack a round before its too late. Also under stress some may get hung up with the mechanics. I'll show him this clip and maybe he will rethink his position...

Any other comments you have I will be glad to share with him.

Click to expand...

Yes. Not only may he not have sufficient time to chamber a round, but suppose his assailant(s) manage to disable his support hand/arm? Now chambering a round just got a whole lot more difficult. A gun not carried in full battery is a gun not ready to use when it is most needed. In an extreme encounter, the fewer amount of things you have to do to bring your gun into use, the better your chance of surviving an attack.

Mtam said:

Wow that is a fantastic finish! Well done to the clerk!

Interesting side note. My father in law carries a glock 26. When he carries he feels it better NOT to have a round in the chamber. When I asked him why he said he didn't want to have an accidental discharge.

Click to expand...

Tell your FIL to look up "the 21 foot rule" and tell me how he'll get a round chambered when his attacker is 21 feet away, or closer. Most self-defense shootings occur inside of 12 feet, let alone 21.

Let him know too that he is not carrying a Glock 26, he's carrying a brick because an empty gun might as well just be thrown at someone like a brick. If he is going to carry, he must have a round chambered.

Something else to note: the police "took his handgun for some tests".

They have disarmed the man for defending himself, even though no charges are being filed.

I would not think it would be lawful to confiscate property which was used in a lawful manner. Is there any "law" which permits the enforcers to do this?

taken gun for tests? WHAT KIND OF TESTS? Bullet ID if suspect is in hospital?

Good reason to have a backup handgun incase this reason here.

More good talking points! Thanks

Siderlock

Mtam said:

Wow that is a fantastic finish! Well done to the clerk!

Interesting side note. My father in law carries a glock 26. When he carries he feels it better NOT to have a round in the chamber. When I asked him why he said he didn't want to have an accidental discharge. Fair enough but when IT hits the fan he may not have enough time to rack a round before its too late. Also under stress some may get hung up with the mechanics. I'll show him this clip and maybe he will rethink his position...

Any other comments you have I will be glad to share with him.

Click to expand...

You might inform your FIL about an aftermarket safety for Glocks: SIDERLOCK
http://www.siderlock.com/?section=features

wylde007 said:

Something else to note: the police "took his handgun for some tests".

They have disarmed the man for defending himself, even though no charges are being filed.

I would not think it would be lawful to confiscate property which was used in a lawful manner. Is there any "law" which permits the enforcers to do this?

Click to expand...

I like this question. It's almost that he was not charged with anything, yet he is suspect of some sort of maleficence because they took his firearm. Kind of equates to being involved in an auto accident which is determined by an officer to not be the fault of an individual, yet they confiscate his vehicle for further examination.

Curious.

Good on the clerk! Bad on the police. No charges, yet they took his gun for "tests."

Actually this story does not portray all details involved in this incident and maybe you would understand why they seized it if you knew (seizing it for tests is for the benefit of the clerk). My agency was also involved in this investigation (four or five NOVA agencies were involved in this for reasons I won't go into). The shooting appears to be self defense and I cannot be more happy for the outcome (good guy alive, bad guy shot).

Of course they will seize the weapon, it's still being investigated and it's evidence. Police can seize evidence from innocent people if has impact on a case. In fact, charges will be filed against both bad guys so there was a crime involved. I hope the clerk has another gun and agree he did everything correctly (from what I know). Most likely the Commonwealth Attorney will still submit this case to a grand jury to back a decision not to charge.

SouthernBoy-You really think you can shoot someone in self defense and police can determine that on scene and let you walk away with your weapon? Fantasy world. I would not even want that if I was involved in a self defense shooting. I would want police to do a thorough job investigating. In fact, the police will throw the investigation to the C.A.'s office to determine it truly meets the definition of self defense. A vehicle accident is much different than a shooting. If you accidentally hit and seriously injure/kill someone who ran out in front of you, then you are not guilty of a crime, and yes, your car will be impounded until the investigation is over (sorry to tell ya). A thorough investigation takes some time and it will take some time for the legal process to determine it was self defense and not to take it to trial.

Maybe someone can lend him one of their guns?

NovaCop10 said:

SouthernBoy-You really think you can shoot someone in self defense and police can determine that on scene and let you walk away with your weapon? Fantasy world.

Click to expand...

Ahhh.... excuse me? I never said anything of the sort. I was curious as stated, however. I have a duplicate copy of my primary carry gun just in case I ever have to use that one. Does that sound like I think otherwise? As for auto accidents, I have been involved in several and was found at the scene not to be the guilty party. I drove away with my car whereas the quality ones' cars were not mobile (one was totaled).

I am also very happy the GG was not charged. My only regret is that taxpayer money will be spent for investigation into this to make sure he was not at fault. But I understand the "why" of this so we just have to live with it. I do hope as little inconvenience as possible is visited upon this man.

And BTW... I don't live in a fantasy world. That's for little kids.

SouthernBoy said:

Ahhh.... excuse me? I never said anything of the sort. I was curious as stated, however. I have a duplicate copy of my primary carry gun just in case I ever have to use that one. Does that sound like I think otherwise? As for auto accidents, I have been involved in several and was found at the scene not to be the guilty party. I drove away with my car whereas the quality ones' cars were not mobile (one was totaled).

I am also very happy the GG was not charged. My only regret is that taxpayer money will be spent for investigation into this to make sure he was not at fault. But I understand the "why" of this so we just have to live with it. I do hope as little inconvenience as possible is visited upon this man.

And BTW... I don't live in a fantasy world. That's for little kids.

Click to expand...

Well maybe I misunderstood your post, which I apologize for. I also hope there is as little inconvenience for the clerk as possible. As a taxpayer, I agree with you. I wish we didn't have to pay for the investigation, the trial of those two thugs (which I am sure will be tax payer appointed attorneys), and for their incarceration. However, I will be satisfied if justice prevails and society is safer.

NovaCop10 said:

Well maybe I misunderstood your post, which I apologize for. I also hope there is as little inconvenience for the clerk as possible. As a taxpayer, I agree with you. I wish we didn't have to pay for the investigation, the trial of those two thugs (which I am sure will be tax payer appointed attorneys), and for their incarceration. However, I will be satisfied if justice prevails and society is safer.

Click to expand...

In re-reading my post in question, I can easily see where my wording could be questionable. What I was meaning to say is that here we have a man who did nothing more than protect himself and he is, to a small degree, treated as though he did something perhaps a little extreme. Granted, deadly force is extreme in that t is... well, deadly force. But when used for the good, as in his own preservation, there is nothing wrong with it at all. It's just something I have a little difficulty in swallowing that someone who acts properly in his defense has to walk on egg shells after the fact.

And then there is the possibility of civil litigation hanging over his head. This is something which should never take place. To think that someone who has gone through the actions and process of defending themself, police questions, attorney consultations, and then might have to suffer through a civil case is unconscionable in my view. It really is a shame that his actions, which are legal and commendable, might wind up costing him much is many ways.

Interesting. In the video I recognized the gas station and apartments in the background from driving past so many times. Then I read the article which confirmed. Yep I know exactly where this is.