Tampa Sunoco Clerk’s Real Gun Beats Robber’s Pellet Gun: Defensive Gun Use of the Day

In the early morning hours of Friday, 9 February, 2018, an armed robber attempted to rob a Sunoco gas station in Tampa, Florida. The clerk had a firearm of his own. The clerk fired several shots, hitting the suspect in the leg. The suspect fled across the street. The clerk followed him and held him for police. Police came, took custody of the suspect, and determined that the suspect’s gun was a pellet gun.

The police lieutenant at the scene educated the reporter on the validity of defense from a perceived deadly threat. [Click here to watch the video.] From the reporter:

… pointing a pellet gun at that clerk, but the lieutenant here told us that really makes no difference in whether or not you are going to defend yourself

From Tampa Police Lieutenant Ricardo Ubina [below]:

Lieutenant Ricardo Ubinas at FL Robbery Scene 2018

“This is typical self defense kind of stuff. If someone is threatening you with a firearm, anybody, a spouse, or anybody, the general public, you have a right to defend yourself.”

While not in the video, reporters at the scene recorded this additional explanation and validation:

Investigators on scene told ABC Action News they believe the shooting is most likely justified, regardless of whether or not the gun was a pellet gun.

“Now the clerk knows when you have a gun shoved in your face you don’t know if it’s a pellet gun or a B.B. gun…” said Lieutenant Ricardo Ubinas with the Tampa Police Department. “It really doesn’t change the dynamics of the robbery. It’s still an armed robbery.”

Twenty years ago, police commentary commonly injected this bit into the narrative: we do not recommend that people act to defend themselves. Let the suspect have what they want and call the police.

Today, we see the police educating reporters on the finer points of self-defense law. I suspect they did this all along, only now is it being reported.

©2018 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included. Gun Watch

comments

  1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    The police response is a positive development, but the clerk could have got himself in big trouble for chasing the guy down. Once the robber flees he is going to be perceived (by the law) as no longer a threat. If he had had to shoot again he wouldn’t have the justification of self def ense. Chasing the bad guy is a bad idea.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Governor,

      I think you may be incorrect. Anyone can certainly chase after a criminal who just committed a violent crime. And there is nothing illegal or legally tenuous if that person is armed as he/she chases the criminal.

      I think the key question is: under what circumstances is that concerned citizen who is pursuing the criminal legally justified to use deadly force? If the fleeing criminal still has a firearm in hand, that criminal still presents a credible imminent threat of grievous bodily harm or death in my opinion. If the criminal dropped their firearm, their hands are in plain view, and they are not moving toward the concerned citizen giving chase, I believe the criminal does NOT present a credible imminent threat of grievous bodily harm or death and the concerned citizen is NOT legally justified to used deadly force.

      The gray area (in my opinion) is if the criminal dropped their handgun, escaped some distance, has a hand in a pocket or reaching to what could be another firearm (although not yet visible), and then starts to slowly advance on the concerned citizen who gave chase. This is the scenario where it is really nice to have qualified immunity and body cameras as well as the backing of your union, police chief, mayor, and prosecutor — which us common folk most certainly do NOT have.

      Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and the above is not legal advice.

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        The real gray area is your local jurisdiction and the disposition toward armed self def ense of your local district attorney. But I seem to remember more than once reading about people getting in big trouble for chasing down a bad guy. Of course, for instance, if you have family outside in the car or something, you certainly have the right to pursue in the interest of securing your family’s welfare. But if you end up killing the guy, certain DAs will question your motive for giving chase. Were you just intent on holding the criminal until police arrived or were you chasing him down to finish him off. My non-attorney advice is that if you don’t have a badge don’t give chase unless you have a compelling interest in doing so. Especially if you’ve wounded him, since the cops usually catch up to them in the hospital anyway.

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Governor,

          All good points which highlight the value of a body camera. (I can only hope that even an overzealous prosecutor would not prosecute a case where body camera video clearly shows legally justified self-defense after the concerned citizen caught-up with the fleeing violent attacker.)

          “… don’t give chase … if you’ve wounded him, since the cops usually catch up to them in the hospital anyway.”

          That is an excellent point that I have used to console people who truly can only carry “weak” handgun platforms such as .22 LR or .32 ACP: even if your attacker ultimately kills you, he/she will show up at a hospital and will be arrested if you managed to put anything close to a decent shot into him/her. (The consolation being that hopefully the courts imprison your attacker for decades which means he/she will not be able to harm anyone else.)

        2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          Also, if you do chase after a bad guy it could be you that ends up shot.

          The vast majority of bad guys will turn tail and run at the sight of any g un. Nobody in the history of mankind has ever taken a .22 round (let alone 11) in the chest and laughed it off. And the vast majority of stops are psychological stops. It’s only the other 2% you really need to worry about carrying too weak of a caliber.

      2. avatar Hannibal says:

        In most states a citizen can arrest someone who has committed a felony in that citizen’s presence. It carries significant legal risks and I would not recommend it in a situation like this for many reasons, including the possibility that the bad guy might have a co-conspirator around the corner acting as a lookout or driver.

        That said, it’s generally legal to chase and attempt to arrest the guy. You can also use deadly force if the guy presents as an immediate threat- i.e. you tell him to stop and he points his “gun” at you- but you’re screwed if your idea of stopping him is to shoot him in the back as he runs.

        All in all, it would be smarter to lock the store doors, call police, and let them follow the blood trail.

    2. avatar GOV. WILLIAM J LE PETOMANE=IslamophobicAsshole says:

      I am an Islamophobic asshole who deserves to be banned from posting any further offensive bigotted drivel.

      Im the worst of America aka the typical President “Grab Em By The Puuuusssssssy” Hump acolyte

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        You should google ‘Le Petomane’.

        1. avatar troutbum5 says:

          When he’s not making islamophobic comments, he’s busy appointing new sheriffs, building tollways in the desert, and motor boating his secretary.

        2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          That’s only half the story. – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_P%C3%A9tomane

        3. avatar troutbum5 says:

          I think you’re full of hot air

      2. avatar JS says:

        Another product of the special ed system in America

        1. avatar JSDimwittedChild says:

          Criticizing Islamophobic posts is unrelated to any developmental disability I may or may not have.

          Ignoring substantive posts you dont want to confront in favor of childishly slurring someone as “retarded” is one of countless ways you unknowingly parade how blighted you are, how nasty and dumb

        2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          Isn’t calling someone ‘an Islamophobic asshole’ over a comment that didn’t have anything to do Muslims or Islam just as ad hominem of an attack as calling into question someone’s intelligence?

        3. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          “Gov. William J Le Petomane says:
          February 9, 2018 at 14:34
          Not only are you correct, but I posit that if he were Muslim and he was spear hu nting Christians in the middle-east they’d be fine with that.”

          This is what Governor Faubus terms “…a comment that didn’t have anything to do Muslims or Islam…”

          Typical ignorance/lying by the dishonest dolts littering this garbage dump of a site

        4. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          a) Your reply is posted under the wrong comment in a totally different blogpost.

          b) How is that original post ‘Islamaphobic’? It’s a fact that ISIS (short for ‘Islamic State’) is persecuting and killing Christians in the middle-east. In that comment I posited that the left wing media didn’t seem to have a problem with the killing of Christians. The comment wasn’t about the Muslims killing Christians, it was about the leftist media that cares more for bears than Christians. It doesn’t matter if it’s Muslims, Hindus, Buddhist or whatever, so therefore there is no Islamaphobia here. Beyond that, a ‘phobia’ is an irrational fear, so if the Muslims are actually killing Christians, than why would it be irrational to fear them?

        5. avatar GovernorFaubusTooIgnorantToCommunicateWith says:

          Im happy to elaborate for you how these two posts are Islamophobic Gov. William J Le Petomane.

          1. When the topic is killing bears with a spear it is a non sequitur(it doesnt logically follow) and irrational to fantasize about “Muslims” killing Christians. The fact that in your “mind” this remark seems clever or even reasonable highlights that you are actively looking for opportunities to smear “Muslims” no matter how unrelated the topic.

          2. And I enquote “Muslims” because the way you use the term is fictional/fantasy, there is no such extant group except in your mind, your “Muslims” simply do not exist in reality. You see you talk about Muslims as if they are a homogeneous entity, but you only ever talk about the worst of the worst (the barbaric ignoramuses in places like Iran and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and you equate ISIL with Muslims) as if this tells us anything meaningful about the entirety of real-world Muslims who are a heterogenous group the majority of which bear no resemblance to the violent dingbats you dwell on to smear all Muslims. It is not meaningful to identify or characterize the folks you are focused on as “Muslims”, it doesnt make sense, their religion does not determine their bad behavior, their bad behavior is not caused by their religion, there will always be violent regressives in all religions and all groups of people. You talk as if folks who happen to be Muslim are somehow particularly inherently violent and backwards and this is simply not the reality of Muslims around the world, tihs is an Islamophobic fantasy extant only in your “mind”

          3. Your fantasy about “Muslims” spear hunting Christians evokes the anachronist racist Social Darwinian anthropological concepts of “savagery” and “civilization”, with “Muslims” in the role of the savage.

          4. You talk about Muslims as if they are a privileged group forever portrayed in glowing terms by
          media elites, when in fact decades of studies by media studies scholars indisputably document systemic bias against Muslims(infamously the ongoing lies justifying Israeli imperialism in Palestine, and the lies justifying the US illegal invasion of Iraq), just as pervasive discrimination against Muslims in the wider US society is well-documented. And this is what reasonable people would expect for such a tiny marginalized minority, only in the “minds” of Islamophobic dunces like you do media elites portray Muslims in an especially flattering light… I can only imagine that you resent media coverage ctiicizing your ignorant brethren mistakenly attacking non-White Americans and/or Americans wearing turbans stupidly presuming they wer “Mawzlambs”…

          5. You talk about Christians as if the media dehumanize their lives and deaths as even less important than an animal, when in fact as reasonable people would expect in a media predominantly Christian their perspective enjoys a privileged position, just as in the wider society the Christian majority enjoys a privileged position. Just look at the endless lamenting and prayers and ritual reading of the names of the dead of the handful of deaths at the WTC and Pentagon, and the few thousand US military deaths attacking Iraq, it was an endless deafening blaring about this molehill of deaths. Now juxtapose that to the deafening near-total silence regarding the millions of Muslims killed by the US in Iraq and the region, barely a peep about that mountain of Muslim corpses… only in your “mind” is it the Christian lives and deaths that are dehumanized and suffer erasure by media elites.

          So these are the ways your posts are Islamophobic, all very obvious stuff, and naturally previously unknown to you and still a mystery to you even after this explication

          PS I offer this tuition gratis, I feel its my duty to remedy such rank ignorance : )

          Gov. William J Le Petomane says:
          February 12, 2018 at 15:30
          … b) How is that original post ‘Islamaphobic’? It’s a fact that ISIS (short for ‘Islamic State’) is persecuting and killing Christians in the middle-east. In that comment I posited that the left wing media didn’t seem to have a problem with the killing of Christians. The comment wasn’t about the Muslims killing Christians, it was about the leftist media that cares more for bears than Christians. It doesn’t matter if it’s Muslims, Hindus, Buddhist or whatever, so therefore there is no Islamaphobia here. Beyond that, a ‘phobia’ is an irrational fear, so if the Muslims are actually killing Christians, than why would it be irrational to fear them?

        6. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          Too many words. If you can’t make a valid point with fewer words, nobody is going to bother reading your diatribe. But I did briefly skim through it, so;

          1) Again, you’re on the wrong page here. You responded to a comment I made about the pitfalls of chasing after a bad guy by calling me an ‘Islamaphobe’. This is what you c all an ‘ad hominem attack’.

          2) I never said all Muslims were barbaric killers. But Muslims have been killing Christians since Mohammad walked the earth (and Christians have occasionally returned the favor). 100 years ago in Turkey, Muslims killed over 2 million Christians for the sole reason of being Christian. 17 years ago it was Al Qaeda. Today the genocide is perpetrated by ISIS. While I don’t ‘fantasize’ about any type of killing, to my knowledge, ISIS prefers to kill Christians by beheading with knives or burning alive, rather than spears.

          3) The vast majority of Muslims killed in Iraq and Afghanistan have been killed by other Muslims, not American soldiers. And near to a man, the ones we killed were the barbaric killers that not all Muslims are.

          4) The media is not predominantly Christian, it’s predominantly atheist.

          5) Calling a redneck from fly-over country an ‘Islamaphobe’ or a ‘racist’ is generally taken as a compliment because we are well aware of the source of the intended insult. You’d probably feel the same if I called you a bed wetting, hoplophobic thumb sucker.

        7. avatar Shallnot BeInfringed says:

          @TheSockPuppetMaster… I wonder what would happen if we replaced every instance of the word “Muslim” in your screed with something much different?

          “You see you talk about gun owners as if they are a homogeneous entity, but you only ever talk about the worst of the worst (the barbaric ignoramuses in places like Chicago and New York City and Baltimore, and you equate the NRA with hundreds of millions of gun owners) as if this tells us anything meaningful about the entirety of real-world gun owners who are a heterogenous group the majority of which bear no resemblance to the violent dingbats you dwell on to smear all gun owners

          Hmmmmmmmm……..

        8. avatar GovernorFaubusTooIgnorantToCommunicateWith says:

          Governor Faubus you asked me how your post is Islamophobic but your attention span is too short

          Your Islamophobia has many facets.

          Your Islamophobia that you dont recognize is so obvious, your remarks are so very dumb/heavily indoctrinated I had to spell out every little detail.

          So you will live and die the embarassingly ignorant Islamophobe you are today

      3. avatar Southern Cross says:

        Has “concernedamericanblahblahblah” changed his meds again?

  2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Twenty years ago, police commentary commonly injected this bit into the narrative: we do not recommend that people act to defend themselves. Let the suspect have what they want and call the police.

    Today, we see the police educating reporters on the finer points of self-defense law. I suspect they did this all along, only now is it being reported.

    I respectfully disagree. Twenty to thirty years ago, I believe the “let us (police) handle it” mindset was quite pervasive in law enforcement. Proliferation of armed good guys and concealed carriers (but I repeat myself) over the intervening years have demonstrated that:
    (1) Armed good guys are not shooting people over insults and slights.
    (2) Armed good guys prevail almost every time over attackers.
    And I believe police have taken notice.

    As a specific example, Detroit Police Chief James Craig worked in California 30+ years ago and enthusiastically supported the “public should not be armed and police should handle everything” mantra. Fast forward to four years ago and he now openly encourages pretty much everyone in Detroit to get their concealed carry license and be armed in public.

    I honestly think that law enforcement attitudes have changed quite a bit in 30 years.

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      To be fair the Chief may have been pro CCW all the time but held that card close to the vest for political reasons.

      It’s easy to talk about “doing the right thing” until doing the right thing means that in the next few weeks you can’t pay your mortgage, your kids are gonna be hungry and that, on top of that you’re gonna be blackballed from your profession so the chances of finding a replacement job within that time frame are about zero.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Strych9,

        I am almost certain that I have read comments from Chief Craig where he explained that he truly opposed an armed citizenry and concealed carry when he was in California — and how he continued that philosophy in Maine denying pretty much ever concealed carry license application — until a superior corrected his practice. At that point he begrudgingly began approving all qualified applicants. It then took a couple years for reality to sink-in and for Craig to see the actual benefit of an armed citizenry. Finally, building on that momentum, he came full circle to be a full-fledged advocate for an armed citizenry when he became Detroit Police Chief and learned how frequently armed citizens were thwarting armed attacks — and how infrequently armed citizens were misbehaving.

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          Fair enough. I haven’t read a whole lot of the guy in his own words.

          I know of some things that have happened to him though, particularly after he became Chief in Detroit, and I can see how serving in Detroit would increase his appreciation of CCW. Especially after some punks tried to carjack him for his cruiser that says “Police Chief” on the side of it… that was ballsy.

          If what you say is what the man said then I would take him at his word.

  3. avatar former water walker says:

    Hey I see tacit approval of armed self-defense on the local Chicago news. I guess when you have hundreds of murders,thousands of shootings and 700carjackings in 1 year(let alone burglaries,armed robberies and RAPE) even the leftard “news” gets the message! On ANOTHER topic did anyone see 60Minutes last night? A breathless and decidedly anti-2A examinotion(sic!😄)of CC reciprocity making it’s way through Congress. Pretty annoying but nothing new from CBS…

    1. avatar Robert Farago says:

      I’ve blogged that for this afternoon.

      1. avatar AnotherFarragoOfNonsenseFromFarago says:

        So Robert Farago Im perplexed as to why you tried to write an coherent article about statistics when you acknowledge that you are “math-challenged”.
        http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/12/robert-farago/cops-are-shooting-unarmed-black-suspects-and/#comment-3753711

        And your ignorance of math is so outlandish that you dont even understand that when comparing groups of different sizes ie blacks and whites it is of course not raw numbers but per capita rates that are the meaningful measure:

        “… Vice’s race card agenda forced them to adjust for population, rather than list the raw numbers …” (paragraph 6)
        http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/12/robert-farago/cops-are-shooting-unarmed-black-suspects-and/#comment-3753711

        School children understand the difference between raw numbers and per capita rates, so how is it possible that an adult who presumes to critique an article (and to do so in a snarky condescending way) and aver authoritative conclusions is wholly ignorant of this simple grade-school concept!?

        You validate your readers ignorance as several commenters (including Ralph, Robert, John, Cloudbuster, Thinker1) cite and/or echo your ignorant remark, and only one Mark N corrects it…

        PS And you repeatedly post these kinds of ridiculously childish lies and you never respond to my documented corrections; its a testament to your dishonesty and ignorance as well as evidence of how blighted the morons on this site are

        1. avatar Gralnok says:

          You seem like an asshole. Please go away.

        2. avatar drunkEODguy says:

          why don’t you adjust the numbers for rate and sample size and admit the uses of guns for crime and illegal homicide are marginal, especially in the face of high ownership rates and exponentially growing legal latitude to carry guns? Is it because you are dishonest? Don’t bother an answer, it is.

        3. avatar GralnokTheDumbChild says:

          Gralnok your post doesnt say anything, it has no substance, like something a child would write… are you a child or yet another of the embarassingly ignorant adults who flock to this ignoramuses haven?

          Sad you are too dumb and dishonest to recognize Robert Faragos ignorant dishonest racist claim that raw numbers should be used to compare the rate of police shooting unarmed white and black folks, when of course is is per capita rates that the meaningful stat and that indisputably document that police disproportionately shoot unarmed black folks.

          Get back to me when you learn to spell “math”

        4. avatar drunkEODguyDimwittedChild says:

          drunkEODguy your post is nonresponsive, a non sequitur, yet another childish ignoring of the topic and attemp to change the subject.

          So Robert Farago Im perplexed as to why you tried to write an coherent article about statistics when you acknowledge that you are “math-challenged”.
          http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/12/robert-farago/cops-are-shooting-unarmed-black-suspects-and/#comment-3753711

          And your ignorance of math is so outlandish that you dont even understand that when comparing groups of different sizes ie blacks and whites it is of course not raw numbers but per capita rates that are the meaningful measure:

          “… Vice’s race card agenda forced them to adjust for population, rather than list the raw numbers …” (paragraph 6)
          http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/12/robert-farago/cops-are-shooting-unarmed-black-suspects-and/#comment-3753711

          School children understand the difference between raw numbers and per capita rates, so how is it possible that an adult who presumes to critique an article (and to do so in a snarky condescending way) and aver authoritative conclusions is wholly ignorant of this simple grade-school concept!?

          You validate your readers ignorance as several commenters (including Ralph, Robert, John, Cloudbuster, Thinker1) cite and/or echo your ignorant remark, and only one Mark N corrects it…

          PS And you repeatedly post these kinds of ridiculously childish lies and you never respond to my documented corrections; its a testament to your dishonesty and ignorance as well as evidence of how blighted the morons on this site are

        5. avatar ProfessorManque says:

          I am the self appointed asshole that trolls this site. I am off my meds and this is my way of acting out.

          Go find another site to troll, moron.

        6. avatar Gralnok says:

          Actually, it’s pretty common knowledge that groups such as the NAACP and Black Lives Matter are comprised of junk science touting morons who try to stir up race relation problems where there previously weren’t any. Also, if you try to argue that police shoot more unarmed black people, you’re going to have to also ask, why were they in confrontation with the law in the first place. It couldn’t possibly have anything to do with a culture of glorifying gangsters, mob mentality, bitches and hoes, drugs, money, and pretty much boasting about who has the biggest dick, hmm?
          Please tell me you’re just trying to be a troll and insult people and you don’t actually believe the lies from BLM or the NAACP. Otherwise, go back to watching CNN, MSNBC, and other fake news stations.

          Also, I forgot to mention. I called you an asshole and told you to go away, because you are one. Please leave this site if you’re so disgusted with it.

        7. avatar strych9 says:

          The problem with everything you say here is that even if your claims of Farago’s ignorance of statistics is 100% accurate that fact is still meaningless based on what you’ve presented here.

          If you’d like to have a semblance of an argument you’re going to actually make some at least semi-valid claims and then back them up with some evidence rather than crying “racism” and then presenting a bunch of bullshit which, under your own arguments, could be easily construed as valid mistakes on the part of RF since you openly accuse Mr. Farago of not understanding math at even a “grade-school” level…

          I mean, for someone who goes around insulting others and making claims about the stupidity of those people’s arguments your own post here is, well should be, fucking embarrassing to you. I’m fairly confident that it’s not though. For it to embarrass you you’d have to have both the intelligence to understand why it should be an embarrassment and the decency to acknowledge such an issue with your own arguments. I suspect you lack both.

        8. avatar Stryche9IsTooDumbToCommunicateWith says:

          So Robert Farago Im perplexed as to why you tried to write an coherent article about statistics when you acknowledge that you are “math-challenged”.
          http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/12/robert-farago/cops-are-shooting-unarmed-black-suspects-and/#comment-3753711

          And your ignorance of math is so outlandish that you dont even understand that when comparing groups of different sizes ie blacks and whites it is of course not raw numbers but per capita rates that are the meaningful measure:

          “… Vice’s race card agenda forced them to adjust for population, rather than list the raw numbers …” (paragraph 6)
          http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/12/robert-farago/cops-are-shooting-unarmed-black-suspects-and/#comment-3753711

          School children understand the difference between raw numbers and per capita rates, so how is it possible that an adult who presumes to critique an article (and to do so in a snarky condescending way) and aver authoritative conclusions is wholly ignorant of this simple grade-school concept!?

          You validate your readers ignorance as several commenters (including Ralph, Robert, John, Cloudbuster, Thinker1) cite and/or echo your ignorant remark, and only one Mark N corrects it…

        9. avatar ChiGurh18 says:

          Okay, lets play the ‘Per Capita’ game. What is the per capita rate of violent crime among race? I want only statistic, no outside unverifiable variables; just the ‘Per Capita’ numbers. See how easily ‘Per Capita’ can makes something look different from reality.

        10. avatar ChiGurh18SmarterThanHeLooks says:

          So congratulations ChiGurh18, you seem to grasp the rudimentary point of my post, namely that we use per capita not raw numbers to meaningfully compare groups of different sizes ie unarmed black and white victims of police shootings. Well done, you are significantly less ignorant/dishonest than Robert Farago who arrogantly presumes to make proclamations while stupidly using raw numbers

          ChiGurh18 says:
          February 12, 2018 at 20:15
          Okay, lets play the ‘Per Capita’ game. What is the per capita rate of violent crime among race? I want only statistic, no outside unverifiable variables; just the ‘Per Capita’ numbers. See how easily ‘Per Capita’ can makes something look different from reality.

        11. avatar ChiGurh18NoLessRacistThanHeSounds says:

          Now ChiGurh18 if whatever group you identify with were being treated wildly unfairly and they were being disproportionately killed and you were upset and wanted to talk about it, but everytime you did I ignored your concerns and instead talked about some negative aspect of your group, then you could/would recognize how absurd and unfair such a response was.

          But your racism prevents you from recognizing/acknowledging how nonsensical your response is to the topic of police disproportionately killing unarmed black folks…

          ChiGurh18 says:
          February 12, 2018 at 20:15
          Okay, lets play the ‘Per Capita’ game. What is the per capita rate of violent crime among race? I want only statistic, no outside unverifiable variables; just the ‘Per Capita’ numbers. See how easily ‘Per Capita’ can makes something look different from reality.

        12. avatar ChiGurh18NoLessRacistThanHeSounds says:

          Lastly ChiGurh18 heres an application of the statistical concept known as , an application you will no doubt never have thought of and will never be able/willing to understand/acknowledge since you are an ignorant lying racist

          When you endlessly trot out those annual black crime stats you dont mention/realize that only 1% of black folks and 2% of black males commit violent crimes.

          So even if ALL violent crime were committed by black folks it would not be rational to be wary of blacks, to treat them differently, to disproportionately shoot and kill them.

          Understand racist dunce!?

          When 98 or 99 out of a hundred black folks/men you encounter are not violent criminals, only in the minds of racists like you does it makes sense to endlessly dwell on violent crime committed by the 1-2%, onle in the minds of racists like you is this a justification for the police to disproportionately kill unarmed black folks.

          Get yourself a tutor who is not an overt racist, try to grapple with this indisputable reality based on the stats you are so enamored of(its your Valentine isnt it, you are in love with the black crime stats, you will give them flowers and sawk on their beautiful black cawk, am I right : O ? )

        13. avatar ChiGurh18NoLessRacistThanHeSounds says:

          So you never miss an opportunity to reiterate the black crime stats (always decontextualied and with the racist implication that black folks are inherently criminal), but you never acknowledge the documented reality that this disproportionate crime rate does NOT account for/explain away the fact that police are disproportionately shooting unarmed black folks:

          “There is no relationship between county-level racial bias in police shootings and crime rates (even race-specific crime rates), meaning that the racial bias observed in police shootings in this data set is not explainable as a response to local-level crime rates.”
          http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141854

          And endlessly repeating this bullsheet excuse of black crime rates is not changing the documented reality:

          “The results provide evidence of a significant bias in the killing of unarmed black Americans relative to unarmed white Americans…”
          http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141854

          Now that Ive shown you the evidence, you can go back to pretending this evidence doesnt exist, and continue spewing bullsheet in this racist echo chamber… which is your punishment btw, to be you all day everyday and experience life through your parochial prism

      2. avatar AnotherFarragoOfNonsenseFromFarago says:

        Another load of sheet from the ignorant racist liar Robert Farago:

        “The mission of this site is to tell the truth about guns and their use.”

        Your every post is littered with bullsheet and you never respond to documented corrections azzzzwipe

        1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          You can type ‘shit’ on this sight. They’re very pro-1A as well.

        2. avatar pwrsergeTheDumbestLiarOfTheDumbLiars says:

          Wrong Governor Faubus, this site consistently removes/edits my documented posts, and never deletes/edits hate speech posts like yours… this site is pro-bullsheet, anti-documented-reality

        3. avatar Gralnok says:

          This site is about guns, gun culture, and gun lifestyles. Don’t like it? There are plenty of other websites out there that will cater to your liberal crybaby feelings. You come here, you insult people, you say everybody here is wrong, you’d best start linking up some facts.

        4. avatar n64456 says:

          Oh look… Another drug-dealing, raping murdering Democrat has shown up…. Shouldn’t you be out selling fentanyl to middle-schoolers?

        5. avatar GralnokTheFetardExpelledFromSchool says:

          Gralnok your post never have any content or citations, contrast that with my indisputably documented remarks.

          You are too stupid and worse boring so Im expelling from my academy, you will live and die a boring fool

        6. avatar Gralnok says:

          Well, ordinarily I’d have let this topic go, but I was cleaning up my open windows and I stumbled upon your lame response so I’ll toss back a reply. Also, I admit, I like having the last word.

          First off, I don’t have to have citations and links to your stupidity, you’ve demonstrated it very well in this thread with ChiGurh18.
          You essentially call him a racist for pointing out some facts, namely, black people commit more crime than white people. NEWS FLASH!: Facts don’t care about your feelings! It is well known that black people comprise 11% to 13% of the population, yet they commit 52% of all violent crime. Not just crime, VIOLENT crime. You say it is racist to look at black people with suspicion? It’s not racist, it’s a survival instinct. If a large brown dog comes up and bites you, you’re going to look all other large brown dogs, sometimes all large dogs, with suspicion.

    2. avatar binder says:

      “Hey I see tacit approval of armed self-defense on the local Chicago news.” The thing is that armed self defense was always kind of “approved” even during the hand gun ban. I have had friends who lived in some pretty dicey neighborhoods growing up. If the cops knew you were not a banger, it was not that hard the get “unofficial approval” to carry. Also no one was ever charged with weapons charges for a good defensive shoot (especially home invasions). One guy involved in a decisive shoot was stupid enough to let the cops see a AR-15, and all they “confiscated” was his 30 round magazines. From what I gather the cops were not too happy about being put in the position of seeing them, not so much that he had them.

  4. avatar Hoyden says:

    What’s the deal with perps gunning up with pellet guns?

    We had one here a few weeks back where a wanted felon was surrounded in a house and came at the police with a B.B. pistol (full size M&P if I remember correctly). Of course he was shot. Then at his funeral a 15 year old gunned down a 12 year old.

    I guess if you want a gentler suicide by cop (I wouldn’t hurt a fly, but I want the cops to end me), this seems no different than charging the cops with an empty gun, toy gun, or a finger gun in your pocket.

    1. avatar Aaron says:

      because you can buy a somewhat realistic looking pellet gun at Walmart for less than $20

      1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

        Yep. Get a realistic looking gun with no ID, no Form 4473, no background check, no waiting period, etc.

      2. avatar Hannibal says:

        And they work as well as a real gun in most situations- robbing an unarmed clerk, impressing the homies on instagram, etc.

        Just not so good in a gunfight.

  5. avatar Aaron says:

    That clerk was very fortunate to be in Florida…methinks some states (MA, MD, CA, etc.) would have busted his balls and he would have some big legal bills – and maybe prison time.

  6. avatar Bitter says:

    Unfortunately there was an armed robbery at the gas station in my town here in Edgewood NM that went quite the opposite and the clerk lost his life.

    1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      Which is a tragic reminder that drawing on a drawn gun is foolish. Unless you know it’s a pellet gun.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Not necessarily Curtis,

        First of all, about 44% of the firearms that armed criminals use are inoperable for various reasons. That alone means you have almost a 50/50 chance of surviving unscathed no matter what you do. Next, we know that about 80% of people who sustain gunshot wounds survive. Finally, let’s include the accuracy (hit) rate of armed attackers and your odds of survival increase further. Say that armed criminals only have a 40% hit rate when their firearms actually function. Your odds of surviving an armed robbery where the robber wants/tries to shoot you are therefore about 95%.

        And, as commenter auldzalt said below, it also depends on the circumstances.

        Here is the really interesting question: is the survival rate of victims who comply when their attacker has a firearm drawn on them greater than the 95% survival rate of victims that I calculated above (who presumably attempt to draw their own firearm)? I honestly have no idea what the answer is to that question.

  7. avatar anonymoose says:

    He could have shot his eye out!

  8. avatar auldzalt says:

    Curtis in IL: It is always circumstantial. I can think of what ifs that go both ways. Bottom line is, are you ready to defend yourself? The police do nor have to, are probably not around to do so, and will first shoot your dog. Time to cowboy up and take the bad guy down.

  9. avatar rick3 says:

    Hmmm…maybe it’s just my computer, but I don’t see a video available at that linked site.

  10. avatar Gralnok says:

    My question is why the clerk aimed for the leg, and not center mass.

    1. avatar WRH says:

      Adrenalin, the first time he had to shoot anyone, lack of training… the list goes on. It’s a lot different than shooting paper from what I understand.

      1. avatar Gralnok says:

        Yeah, that’s true.

      2. avatar Scoutino says:

        Yeah, leg is what he hit, not necessarily what he aimed for. Still better shooting than NYPD.

  11. avatar ironicatbest says:

    So when my Xwife stuck a gun to my head and screamed in a hydrocodone, induced flip out “!!!!! I WANT YO DEAD, MOTHER FUCKER!!!!!!! , I could have shot her? Geeeee Whiz , ,.Its who makes the 9-1-1 first, she had me on that. Happily she didn’t show up for court or I’d have never been able to own a firearm again.T hat Domestic Violence law is a gun grabber, fight all you want for suppressor’s, that DV law needs cahanged

    1. avatar Anymouse says:

      Would a reasonable person in the same situation believe that there was an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm to himself or others? Would a reasonable person believe that the ex had the means of inflicting death or great bodily harm? Would a reasonable person believe the ex’s actions or words showed intent to inflict death or great bodily harm? Would a reasonable person believe the ex was in close enough vicinity to inflict death or great bodily harm? With the info you’ve provided, the answers all seem to be yes, so deadly force would seem to be a justifiable response (which you still may have to justify to a jury).

      You need at least some of these conditions, and the more that you have gives you a greater chance of convincing a jury that your actions were the same as a reasonable person’s. A man calmly walking down the street with a slung rifle has means, but shows no imminent intent. Some unarmed angry person threating to kill you isn’t a chance of death or bodily harm if they aren’t significantly bigger and nearby. Threatening with a baseball bat from across the street doesn’t seem imminent. Threating while beside you with the bat held low has pretty good chance if you can tell a good story. Having 10 witness hear him scream that he’s “going to bash you brains in” as he raises the bat gives a pretty good chance that you’re walking out of the courtroom a free man, assuming it gets that far.

      Just because you may use deadly force doesn’t mean you must. Even if she loved you and only acted that way because of taking an unfamiliar drug, you’re just as dead if she pulls the trigger, and she can’t imaging having done it when she’s straight again.

      There could be facts that you know that a reasonable person wouldn’t know that could disallow deadly force if proven that you knew – you recognized the gun as not real, you knew the gun was unloaded and no ammo in house, you knew the ex wasn’t a gun person and wouldn’t know how to chamber/fire the gun, you know she doesn’t have the finger strength to pull that gun’s heavy trigger, etc.

      Assuming none of those exclusions is true, all your other info is true, it would still be a hard case for you to prove. You shot the ex, call 911 and tell them she had a gun to your head. The police show up, see the dead body.
      You’ve admitted to making that body dead. Forensics show she was under the influence of mind altering drugs and her fingerprint are on the gun. Without witnesses, a story could be presented that she was casually holding the gun or touched it in the past, and you planted it after shooting her. Past call outs for abuse or DV could strenghten that alternative story. You may have acted completely legally and still go to prison because you couldn’t prove it.

  12. avatar Calvin says:

    Even if I was 99% sure it was a pellet gun, like someone was obviously waving around a 2240, I’d still shoot. That’s still a threat of death or grievous bodily harm.

    “He dindo nuffin! Iss jus a BB gun!” <<< nope, nope, nope

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email