According to multiple reports, an attempted broad daylight jewelry store robbery in a San Antonio mall went bad, resulting in gunfire and multiple casualties. According to nbcdfw.com, “One person was killed and seven others were wounded in an attempted robbery at the Rolling Oaks Mall in San Antonio, Texas, on Sunday, officials said. The robbery happened at the KAY Jewelers store in the mall, Leslie Garza, San Antonio mayor’s director of communications, told NBC News.”

The shooting apparently started when bystanders attempted to stop two stick-up men as they tried to leave the store.

One of the suspects shot and killed one of the Good Samaritans. The other Good Samaritan, who has a concealed carry license, shot and wounded that suspect, police said.

The other suspect then fled through the mall, shooting six people as he ran, police said.

All six victims were transported to nearby hospitals. Their conditions were not immediately known, police said.

A search continues for one of the suspect who escaped. More as it becomes available.

91 Responses to 1 Dead, 7 Wounded in San Antonio Mall After Robbery Attempt

  1. It’s not nice to blame the victim, but damn. It’s not your shit, and they’re on the way out. Let ’em go.

    The good guy would still be alive and the jewelry store has insurance.

    I know it’s cold, but am I wrong?

    • You’re not wrong, but they may have had good reason. The details are still sketchy. They may have just seen two armed men charging them and responded by attempting to defend themselves.

      • I agree with Matt; however as you said the details are sketchy on what happened here. Looking at how the story is written it seems as though the armed citizen waited until after the 1st man was shot. If he had enough restraint not to act on the robbery, but then after he saw the man being shot drew and fired then I fully support his decision.

    • And I suppose if it’s in your home (and you have insurance) should just stand aside? Screw the insurance co. If I DON:T have insurance OK to shoot?

      • You’re the one that brought up “in your home.” They’re in your house, drop ’em where they stand.*

        This is retail. If they guy that works there isn’t going to stand up to the man with the gun on his way out, why should you?

        *This offer not valid in all jurisdictions.

        • I agree. I think the takeaway on the (D)GU after the robbery attempt, that your loss of life is the risk you take. On the other hand, the other bad guy went through the mall shooting others (same direction or not), and defense of life may have actually been in play. So, details are always sketchy, but point taken that elective defense of property may require discretion.

        • Its not defense of property. Robbery is considered a violent crime…. these guys were willing KILL innocent people for crap… they needed to be stopped sooner rather than later….. like was said above, the risk you take for taking action.

        • One of the more specious arguments is that someone committing an armed robbery “only wants stuff”. If you are in close proximity of someone willing to use a gun in the commission of a crime, it’s folly to assume that they’ll leave you alone if you leave them alone. Doing that means that you are trusting your life to a criminal with a gun. That strikes me as stupid. It’s also what got 6 people randomly shot as the armed robber fled the scene.

      • If it’s yours it’s always okay to shoot. If it’s a retail/bank robbery it’s very different. The guy above is very right, we don’t know the details. Did they see the guys robbing the store and decide to stage an ambush? Dumb. Risking your life for insured crap is dumb in my book. Did they have reason to believe these guys were actually going to harm someone? Good, I’m glad people will step up to that plate still. I’d like to believe that I would. I know, I know, waving a gun around is a deadly threat but as long as the employees are playing along statistically nothing other than the robbery is going to happen.

        • That they shot 7 people and killed one is pretty clear evidence that they were willing to harm people……. they were willing to kill innocent people for some metal and carbon trinkets…. they needed to be stopped.

      • It sounds like the LTC-holder was standing out of the way until the unarmed Good Samaritan was shot, and then decided that it was necessary to employ deadly force to secure the safety of the others on the premises.

        What’s unclear in that article is who the other two people that were shot were, and what the timeline was to those shootings.

    • You’re not wrong. Instigating a fire fight in a public place over property that is not yours (and is likely insured) is stoooopid. Hell, I’d even call it reckless.

      • They shot and killed an unarmed citizen THEN the CCW guy engaged. These guys started and decided to continue the massacre, NOT the law abiding citizens….. have all you guys been brain washed or something??? I live in california and even i can see that the gun guy isnt at fault here.

        • If I am reading the article correctly, the robbers started shooting after the bystanders tried to stop them from leaving. The police called the bystander who was shot a ‘Good Samaritan’, which implies he was trying to intervene and stop the robbers when he got shot. So it sounds like the victim initiated the fight, not the other way around.

        • “So it sounds like the victim initiated the fight, not the other way around.”

          Absolutely not! The fight was “initiated” by the armed robbers. Scheech.

        • According to dallasnews.com, an unarmed man tried to stop the two armed robbers. Now, was he legally correct? Absolutely. Morally correct? Positively. Dumber than a box of rocks? Yep, yep, yep.

          The CHP holder, at that point, drew. Legally and morally correct, again. Best move? I wasn’t there, I don’t know, so I won’t judge.

          But the first guy is dead because he brought …nothing…to a gunfight.

        • The question is if this was a known gunfight. If he just saw criminals absconding, he may have figured that they were not armed.

          I haven’t seen anything indicating what the carry policy is at this facility, so the GS may have assumed a lack of firearms.

    • It would be impossible to know at the moment the armed robbers were exiting the jewelry store, so one could not consider it a certainty to be considered in the decision calculus, but the fact (as reported, anyway) of this event is that the shooter continued to shoot half a dozen people during his getaway through the mall.

      Suppose you were in one store, while your family was somewhere else in the mall? Having a desperate armed robber on the loose could mean he might cross paths with your loved ones (or someone else’s), and fire upon them for being in his way. Again, there’s no way to know for a fact that that will happen, but you do know that that’s not a completely remote possibility.

      It’s up to each person to determine their own rules of engagement, of course, assessing a fast moving scenario as best they can, but to dismiss out of hand ever getting involved, simply because it’s somebody else’s store and it’s just merchandise, is wrong. It flagrantly ignores realistic probabilities. Again, run the numbers in your head and decide for yourself, I say, but you’re suggesting this scenario provides no numbers to run, or at least numbers whose decision is a foregone conclusion. I don’t agree, because a desperate armed robber running through the mall is inherently, lethally dangerous.

    • Yeah, you’re wrong. You sound like a gun control nut or a coward.

      Two men with intent to rob and kill are confronted by two men willing to sacrifice their life to protect innocents and the people in that story you decide to criticize are the heroes.

      You are under no obligation to protect others just like any sheep in the mall and obviously you wouldn’t since you want us to validate your lack of courage by agreeing that we’d coware and hide as well in the face of evil. It would save face if you kept that to yourself.

      • It’s always amusing when someone whose name I can’t recall seeing before calls me a gun control nut or the like. (Though he did temper it with “or a coward.”) You’re not from ’round here, are ya?

        Would the guy who shot several other people on the way out of the mall have done so if there hadn’t already been gunplay as he was leaving the store? We’ll never know. Would that gunplay in the store have happened if the unarmed and now dead Good Samaritan not tried to stop them as – according to the story related here – they were already on their way out? Again, we can’t know.

        A couple people are straw-manning my argument with things I didn’t say, so let me be clear. My comments were in response to this specific incident, and based on what we knew at the time my comment was posted. I was not referring to laying down in the face of hypothetical home robberies, nor was I saying “just give the robbers what they want” in any random hypothetical robbery situation. My question, very specifically, was “Why would you risk your life to save material goods that are not yours, and that are very likely insured, if no violence has been committed and the goblins are on their way out?” That goes even more strongly if the bad guys are demonstrably armed and you are not.

      • You are kidding right.

        We all carry for different reasons. My reasons don’t include playing police officer. If the perps were on their way out, they should have let them go. If information shows that the citizens were threatened, then its a different story.

        • Don’t “should” on me and I won’t “should” on you.

          You ‘should’ realize that there are people with a different idea of what they ‘should’ do.
          They didn’t hang horse thieves because the horse was worth more than a human life. They did it because the horse was essential to human life.
          In this case you don’t stop the robbers because of what they took, you do it because they threaten violence upon the innocent. You don’t stop them this time and maybe someone won’t stop them the next time they threaten harm to someone you care about.
          However, you do stop them and they don’t harm the next guy/gal. And the youth that might have been inspired by the robber’s success decides on a different path. Stopping one crime might actually stop hundreds of crimes.
          But every situation is different and I’m not going to condemn you for not acting if you’re ever in such a situation.

      • I don’t know about the “apparently” tried to stop armed robbers at a mall, but if it were me, they would have never known I was trying to stop them until the first one developed a new hole.

    • In many, if not most, jurisdictions, if you witness a violent felony (armed robbery is a violent felony), you may attempt a citizen arrest.
      If the felons threaten you with bodily harm, even if you are not attempting an arrest, you are well within your rights to defend yourself with force.
      Details are sketchy at this point, but such felons often threaten everyone in sight by waving weapons around, and even assaulting those they think are too close or blocking their way. Such threats can legally be countered by force.
      IANAL. But that doesn’t make me wrong.
      What is being robbed has nothing to do with defending yourself from a deadly threat.

    • You’re not wrong. The whole point of everything is to keep people safe, not to protect property. If they engaged the bad guys just to “stop them,” it was stupid.

      • Apples and oranges.

        Since the link you provided had precisely no info beyond “robbery” and “shot,” I looked up a few other versions of that event. The two guys walked in, stole a cell phone from one employee, then shot (at) the cashier WHILE robbing her. They then left without actually taking any money, which leads me to the belief that the shot may have even been inadvertent, since all they did was graze the victim at bad breath distance.

        That is completely and utterly not the same as this situation, where by all accounts the bad guys already had the loot and were headed for the door, having not fired a shot, when they were intercepted and bad things happened. Would there have been gunplay if they hadn’t been interrupted in their walk toward freedom? I have no idea, but it seems like a reasonable theory.

        It’s all a question of timing. You want to ballistically interrupt a robber who is in the process of poking a gun in the cashier’s face? That seems reasonable, if you’re into that sort of thing. You don’t know where it will end up. But a robber who has already robbed, and is headed for the door, having not harmed anyone? Nah, it’s stuff. It’s going. The end is in sight. Let it go. That’s my thinking, anyway.

    • ^^^^ Brainwashed Republican. Diehard Democrat here, Glock Viridian-equipped in every tactical point in my house, home-carry, and carry 2 Glocks ccw everywhere. Don’t broadbrush everybody.

        • Hahahaha. Honestly, people who know I like guns still like and respect me because they know that I’m a good person.

          Not all liberal minded people are closed minded ya know. Some are. But that’s seems doubly true on the other side of the political fence.

        • Liberal minded is practically a synonym for closed minded. What are you talking about?

        • Lol he’s “fine with it.” Probably because the gun folks he might know also hate him (maybe secretly) due to his indefensible stance.

          Tell us more about why you are OK electing the folks who would despise your very right to defend yourself properly? Is the free & clear killing of unborn babies really that important to you?

        • Maybe he’s “fine with it” because his response is funny and a great one if he doesn’t feel like going into detail as to why he holds a broad range of political beliefs.

          I had a discussion with a homosexual lady about who we voted for. I voted for Trump because I thought there was a small chance my vote would matter and my number one issue is the 2A. (I usually vote third party in all state wide elections because, normally, the Republicans are guaranteed to win state wide. I split the ticket locally because I personally know most of the candidates and don’t have to use party affiliation and internet research to determine what the person will do in the job).

          She voted for Hillary because of gay marriage. We both voted on the Supreme Court pick. We both understood each other’s positions. We both had one right we couldn’t vote against.

      • It’s not democrats. It’s liberal progressives that are the problem. I’m also a registered democrat, but really an independent. Can’t say I’ve actually voted for a democrat lately. It’s become almost impossible to be a gun toting democrat because the party is being stolen by hypocritical liberals.

        • Is being stolen? *Has been.* The Democratic party was infested by radical leftist progressives back in the 60s and completed the transition to fascism during the Obama years.

          Traditional Democratic voters have had the wool pulled over their eyes by the party insiders and the media establishment (but I repeat myself), so they don’t see it — but if you can’t bring yourself to vote for what used to be your party, you probably do.

          Think about everything Hillary Clinton said she wanted to do, and then look up “National Socialist Workers’ Party.” Substitute extreme oikophobia for xenophobia, and there you have it: the Democratic party is America’s version of the Nazis. No, I am not kidding.

        • NorincoJay…. In (at least) the last 4 years; name a Democrat that isn’t a nutjob, gun-grabbing Progressive….. I’ll wait….. The Democratic party ISN’T the “party of the people” anymore… That ended in the early 2000’s, when the last “blue-dog” Democrat from the south was kicked out on their ass…. Nothing by Elizabeth Warrens, “Chuckles the clown” Shumers, and the likes of Maxine “tin-foil” Waters; and Gavin “The Fluffer” Newsom controlling that party…. That’s why they are irrelevant; but still dangerous to 2A rights

      • “Glock Viridian-equipped in every tactical point in my house, home-carry, and carry 2 Glocks ccw everywhere.”

        Wow. Just wow. *facepalm*

        “They call him Tutex, he tote two techs
        And when he starts to bust
        He likes to ask ‘Who’s next?'”

        • This is Gecko46 I think. .45 was found unreliable in testing. An upgrade was required.

          He doesn’t seem to have learned the lesson of Gecko45 though, which is “If you’re going to make shit up at least make up shit that’s half-way believable and doesn’t make you sound like a retard”.

      • Anyone who self identifies and labels themselves as a piece of any party, especially the major(ly corrupt) ones, is brainwashed.
        Use your own brain and embrace individuality. Ease of broadcasting the majority of your opinions into easily misunderstood bullet points and saving a whole couple minutes straight party voting be damned.
        If you aren’t an independent… then you’re an idiot.

        • Well, I tend to agree with that, but only because I’m too lazy to vote in primaries. If you are not too lazy, you should be registered one or the other, since it does not require you to either vote or contribute to any candidate of either party, simply allows you to vote in the primary in most states.

        • I know that you didn’t say that you have to register with as a Democrat/Republican to vote in their respective primaries in Texas, but I would just like to point out that you only need to register as a voter to be eligible to vote in either primary. Once you vote in one, you can’t vote in the other.

      • You are the gun owning equivalent of a black Klansman. Your party has, at it’s CORE, a desire to take away the right you are so gleefully enjoying.

  2. Best wishes for speedy recovery for all except the mopes.

    It’s tough to second guess the CCW holders with such little info. They could have found themselves in an untenable situation and decided that shooting was the best option for them. Or they might have been bone heads. Nobody knows. Let’s give them the benefit of the doubt.

    John

    • I dunno about the good Samaritans but the guy who shot his way out sounds like he watched Reservoir Dogs too many times and fancied himself as Mr. Blonde.

  3. It would be the prudent thing to just let them go. But some people just can’t stand by and watch it happen. I’m not sure I could.

  4. My only question is why an unarmed guy would attempt to intervene on an armed robbery. Did he think he could talk themore out of it or something? And if he was armed he needed to let his gun do the talking.

    • Maybe he didn’t know they were armed until it was too late?

      Very possible that on the way out the door the BG’s stashed the burners in their waistband or a pocket. Walking though a mall, pistol in hand tends to attract exactly the wrong kind of attention if you just robbed some place.

      Of course running through the mall blasting random people has the same effect to a greater degree so…

  5. Intervene in a mall jewelry store robbery? Nope. Pulling a gun on me or a loved one? Yeah…retail jewelry IS robbery. Go to an auction if you want to save some $. Condolences to the injured and deceased.

    • Except, in this case, the armed robbery turned into the robber pulling a gun and shooting six innocent bystanders during the escape. So it would seem that the initial determination of the event as being “just” an armed robbery proved myopic. Now, it’s impossible to foresee the future another minute down the road, of course, but know this: an armed, violent criminal is thoroughgoing dangerous.

      “Just let him get away” after the robbery is potentially as fatal a mistake as is “just give him what he wants” during the robbery.

  6. And here you see an example of the difference between a hero, and a fool; why on Earth would anyone confront a gunman over some store’s property without a weapon of their own?

  7. The comments of whether the good guy should or should not have intervened miss the greater issue. There is a mentality by way too many who carry that they want to intervene, they look forward to engaging, they are giddy with the thought of exercising that power, they can’t wait to finally go pew-pew. Get over the notion that we are sheepdogs and the world’s policeman. It just might save your life.

    • In a country of 20+ million carriers, I’d just concede that every conceivable motive you can imagine is probably held by at least one person. That’s just basic probability. To suggest that it’s a predominant motive among carriers, though? That’s laughable. You use the term “way to many”, so that’s a squishy and infinitely elastic term. I’m not going to quibble over it as you inevitably backpedal.

      You mean a substantial minority, if not majority, of carriers fall into that category and that’s just silly. If that were the case, then you’d see concealed carriers interfering regularly in places where [stuff] goes down regularly, like inner city public parks at night, for example. Instead, where you see this happen is on lonely stretches of highway, or the mall, or the grocery store.

      Your snide comments are revealing. What they reveal is either that you’re one of those people you describe, the “I wish a MF’er would…..” crowd, yourself, or you’re one of those people who doesn’t have the courage to intervene when it’s necessary, so you ridicule others who have done so. It’s easier to accept not measuring up to a standard if you can knock down and discredit that standard, right?

      • This is the best, most sensible comment I’ve read so far (re: Jonathan-Houston). If you want to “way too many” it, then here ya go: Way too many people generalize and make presumptions and assumptions about how others think, based on their own perspective and worldview… in reality, there are as many variables as there are permits out there. I’ve had two DGUs– one to protect myself, and one to intervene. I didn’t want either one, and I especially didn’t want to intervene in someone else’s business (particularly since I had to watch about 30seconds of a woman being pounded in the face to listen carefully to what was being said so I could be *very sure*… and I am still not completely sure, years later…). Every scenario is different, every situation has its unpredictable variables, and everyone’s life experiences are simultaneously & dichotomously universal & unique, so that when you mash it all up into a critical moment, it’s just never a scene you can paint clearly with broad brushes. This is why something like, say, Zimmerman-Martin has been Rashoman’d out from so many divergent perspectives, and people see it so many different ways, despite how clear “the facts” seem to each and every one of us. If you think it just boils down to simple “well liberals this” and “conservatives that,” you’re really missing the point and suffering from some calculable degree of myopia, in my opinion. But hey, maybe “way too many people are myopic!”

        The article about this Texas mall DGU doesn’t tell us much– heck, it doesn’t even tell us if it was actually a DGU… or a vigilante hero thing… or a reasonable and sensible citizen intervention… or some two-man buddy thing gone awry. The only real fact here is: we just don’t know what happened yet. And even when we do know, there are more than likely gonna be several “right answers,” and several coulda-shoulda-woulda “better answers.” We weren’t there, though… and while we can guess that we’d all act the hero or the fool, we don’t know because it didn’t happen to us.

        Sure, it’s more fun/interesting to armchair QB the thing… but there is nothing wrong with admitting the above uncertainties, and slowing it down to ponder on what we can learn from it, once we discover more information.

        That said, allow me a generalization… anyone spouting off silly nonsense like “you’re a coward” for not intervening in a jewel heist, based solely on an expressed opinion regarding the incomplete information within a summary article… that is just trolling– and if you’re serious about judging people as “cowards” based on some comment opinions, then it sure isn’t any more productive than actual trolling. That is my opinion, do with it what you like… and while I hope the Lord gives me courage when it counts, I’m comfortable I’d at least be sure I’m not a coward because somebody online says so. But, maybe that was just somebody’s idea of a “joke,” or “being funny,” I guess… could be.

        Be safe.

    • “There is a mentality by way too many who carry that they want to intervene, they look forward to engaging, they are giddy with the thought of exercising that power, they can’t wait to finally go pew-pew.”

      And just where and how did you come by this sterling gem of wisdom? This is straight out of the Mom’s playbook. Here’s a suggestion: When the bad guys come for you, call a liberal.

    • @ David B
      Your comment is laughable at best. I don’t care if you pulled some bull-shit statistic out your tail-pipe indicating that weapon carriers want to engage someone. That’s an idiotic, inaccurate, misleading and pompous characterization.
      Having carried for almost 40 years now and known many gun carriers, I don’t know ANYONE that wants to engage someone as you suggest. Are there those who are willing? Damn straight there is. Does the possibility of being in that position run through our thoughts? Of course it does. The fact is though, very VERY few people actually want to engage in a lethal situation.
      Carrying a weapon is a great responsibility that no lawful person takes lightly.
      As such, your comment is dismissed as nothing more than pointless, unverifiable babble.
      Congratulations on looking like a d—- bag to the rest of us.

      • Like that bandying about “coward” shit, huh? Sounds like you must be a tried and true operator, huh? Operating operationally? Wow, I can hardly express how impressed I am not. How about explaining a few of your more dazzling exploits?! Especially one or maybe two that don’t involve your mommy or her basement.

        • Invent what you want about me to reinforce your opinion, but this isn’t about me or you. It’s about two selfless souls that either gave their life or risked losing it to save innocents. Talk down on me all you want, but spare me the circle jerk talking down or second guessing those who did do something. If the man’s actions who died saved your daughter, would you accept others pissing on his grave?

        • Also, I never implied I wasn’t a coward, if I had the credentials to prove otherwise I wouldn’t be alive to post here. But someone who gives their life protecting others gets my respect and at least the benefit of the doubt. And even if you were a double MoH winner straight out of CAG, no self respecting person would talk about the shit you asked on a msg board, who the hell you pretending to be? Inpressed indeed.

  8. As I understand the sketchy information, an unarmed citizen tried to stop the crooks and were shot by them. Since shots were being fired, the armed citizen felt it was appopriate and necessary to draw his weapon to protect himself and others. It the crooks are already shooting, I think the armed citizen acted as any normal person would.

  9. Headline is wrong- good guys have 1 Samaritan dead, 2 bystanders wounded. 1 woman went into labor, 1 woman had chest pains, both went to hospital- neither is ‘wounded.’
    1 bad guy shot by CHP holder in critical condition, not sure we should count him among casualties- do we count the suicide bomber in the reported death toll? F*ck him, I say. Hope EMTs ignored him until good Samaritan was beyond help.

  10. Lhstr, you cannot trust what NBC said or wrote. All CCW go thru some sort of training and some go thru intensive training. Once a shot has been fired, then get involved if need be. Most of us would not sit by and let a shooting go on without caring what is happening. Always watch your six, be safe out there.

  11. If they are willing to shoot people on the way out, they are willing to shoot people in the next robbery. Non-intervention sounds great when the results are bad, and being a hero sounds great when the results are good.

    Would I go out of my way to stop a jewelry store robbery? Probably not. If the bad guys are moving towards me in their escape route, that may very well change.

    I’m glad the bad guys are in custody, and hope the good guys heal up well.

    • Well, there’s one thing that *didn’t’ happen that the left says will always happen.

      Not one concealed carrier was shot by police responding to the scene…

    • “Would I go out of my way to stop a jewelry store robbery? Probably not. If the bad guys are moving towards me in their escape route, that may very well change.”

      Exactly. And well said, Accur81. Unless you’re Hickok45 that LCP isn’t much good at 80 yards, but if The Really Bad Thing is happening right in front of you and yours everything changes. Defending oneself isn’t about heroics, it’s about survival. Trusting your life to someone you wouldn’t trust with your car-keys just strikes me as a bad move.

  12. There’s no point in trying to stop someone during a robbery, or after having robbed a store, if you aren’t directly in danger. It’s called insurance. The store has it. If I can get away, I will. If I can’t, I’ll be ready to defend myself or my loved ones, and possibly someone else if they are in direct danger. Not over stuff!

  13. It’s a logical fallacy to hold someone accountable for another’s action. The 2 bad guys brought lethal weapons with them when they decided to commit a crime(felony). When they were confronted about their crime they resorted to deadly violence to escape. The bad guys and only the bad guys are responsible for their actions. By the way, they caught the other suspect.

  14. Of all the people hospitalized, one was one of the criminals, one was a pregnant lady who went into labor, and one was a woman complaining of chest pain. It really pisses me off when people twist headlines to make it sound like it was a bloodier situation than it actually was.

    • TTAG’s not twisting the headline, that’s the count that was originally reported by local news, and the information that was posted up on SAPD’s facebook page. It was only much later that SAPD reported that 4 people were shot, including the suspect and the deceased good Samaritan. The other suspect shot 2 more on the way out.

      • I should clarify. My irritation isn’t with TTAG, it’s with the MSM that did shoddy off-the-cuff reporting without all the facts on hand. When I saw the news this morning in my feed well after all the facts had been brought out, it had a very similar headline to what TTAG used. It wasn’t until I read through that I saw the actual breakdown of victims, and felt like the mainstream media should have at least updated the headline. Instead, it sounded like a LTC holder got involved and “upped” the body count through bad shooting, when that wasn’t the case at all.

  15. This incident is training gold. As more details emerge, it should be cussed and discussed.

    I hope that I shall always remembers to wise words of the grizzled retired Texas state trooper who taught my first CHL class. He said, “Let “stuff” go.”

  16. Thank you for making me google ‘casualties’ in an effort to say you used the word wrong, and inadvertently expand my vocabulary to understand causality can mean injured, not just dead. TMYK

  17. Can you all say the words, “Wrongful Death Lawsuit?” Then again, failure to stop a robber is the whole backstory of Peter Parker becoming Spiderman….. Basic rule of thumbs? Know the law. Know what is a shoot vs. No shoot situation. Actions have consequnces. Have a lawyer’s card in wallet. You are not John McClaine, Passenger 57, or 007 who seems to drop anything with a .32acp.

  18. This is why banks gave up armed guards decades ago. A metal detecting door system has been in all my Citizens branches for years. The jewelry industry may have adapt the same tech. As well as smash proof cases.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *