Good Samaritan Shoots and Kills Would-Be Robber, Protecting Store Clerk and Customers

image via Paul Sableman on Flickr

He could have run in the opposite direction and called the police, but that’s not what a sheepdog does.

At around 9:45 a.m. Tuesday morning in Dekalb, Georgia, two employees and three customers were inside a Family Dollar on Covington Highway. Suddenly, a man pulled out a gun, pointed it directly into the female store clerk’s face, and demanded money.

“While the store was getting robbed, a Good Samaritan intervened” said DeKalb County Police Sgt. Lynn Schuler. “He shot the suspect several times.”

So, instead of getting the money he’d come for, the suspect paid with his life for threatening an innocent person with a deadly weapon. The clerk was badly shaken by what happened, but immensely grateful to the concealed carrier.

“She’s upset. She’s dealing with corporate right now… but she’s fine,” Schuler said. He also added, “He didn’t do anything wrong. He stopped a robbery in progress and did what he had to do… I could understand why people would call him a hero.”

And that they are. In a heartening end to a news video (below), community residents express praise and gratitude toward the yet unnamed sheepdog for being in the right place at the right time, doing the right thing.

“I’m glad that Good Samaritan was there to save that person’s life who was at work, trying to make an honest dollar,” said one man.

“It is a good thing,” a woman said. “Good people are still out there.”

comments

  1. avatar Trampled Under Foot says:

    They should give him free lifetime shopping.

    1. avatar L says:

      Better yet, they should give that clerk a subcompact so she doesn’t have to hope there will be someone else around who will come to her rescue next time.

      1. avatar Charles O. Slavens says:

        The bad guy is pointing his gun.

        I carry in my pocket.. my hand is on my gun.

        The clerk gives the bad guy the money and the bad guy leaves.

        No shots fired.

        1. avatar Broke_It says:

          The asshole pointing a gun at me isn’t gonna get much time to decide what they’re doing. Shots need to be fired when some dickhead wants to put another innocent life in danger. This is what success looks like, not cowering for your life and hoping the other guy follows the “rules” of the robbery.

        2. avatar Mikial says:

          And your point is? How about this . . . bad guy is successful and is encouraged to commit more crimes that become progressively more violent until he decides to take the next step. Worried that he will be recognized and arrested, he decides it’s better not to leave any witnesses. Or maybe he takes a fancy to a young clerk and decides to force her to come with him. Maybe someone just walks into the store during the robbery and inadvertently startles him and he turns and shoots them. Too many uncertainties when you are dealing with someone who is willing or desperate enough to walk into a business or a home and point a gun at a total stranger just to get what you want from them.

        3. avatar Terclinger says:

          “The bad guy is pointing his gun.
          I carry in my pocket.. my hand is on my gun.
          The clerk gives the bad guy the money,”
          the bad guy smiles, turns and shoots you in the face
          and then shoots the clerk in the face,
          starts herding the women to the back of the store,
          rapes a few, kills the rest,
          finally the cops show up and the bad guy kills himself.

          No shots fired BY YOU.

      2. avatar 22winmag says:

        Subcompact is a descriptive term for cars, not guns.

        Full size, compact, or micro.

        That is all.

        Carry on.

        1. avatar Wood says:

          Hk p2000sk does not agree with you. Neither do I.

    2. avatar American Patriot says:

      More then likely they’ll ban him from the store.

    3. avatar Derringer Dave says:

      In New Jersey, unless the concealed carrier is a cop, he’s going to prison for a long, long time.
      Minimum 10 years for unlawful possession of a firearm and unlawful use of a firearm.
      Maximum life in prison for murder. In New Jersey, there is no right to self defense outside of the home.
      Possibly there might be a right to defend others outside the home, but not with a gun, because NJ doesn’t trust civilians to carry outside the home, period.
      Pepper spray or nothing, that’s what the People’s Republic of New Jersey mandates for self defense!
      Which is why I want to move out of the PRNJ as soon as I can afford to.

  2. avatar strych9 says:

    Thankfully there was someone there smart and courageous enough to do the right thing.

    You know, unlike all the douchebags who say “My gun is only to protect me and mine” and who would have pulled a “Brave Sir Robin” and bravely run away.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “You know, unlike all the douchebags who say “My gun is only to protect me and mine” ”

      Owning a gun does not make you a cop, nor a neighborhood vigilante, nor the Lone Ranger. Carrying a gun does not make you a cop, nor a neighborhood vigilante, nor the Lone Ranger. When buying a gun, you do not sign a fealty pledge to protect and defend the citizenry. When carrying a gun, you are not required to sign a fealty pledge to protect and defend the citizenry. There is no Oath of Office for gun owners. A gun owner has no more responsibility “To Protect and Serve” the public, than do law enforcement.*

      A knee jerk reaction to put your life at deadly risk, rejecting your responsibilities to your family (are you that replaceable? really?), is a selfish act in and of itself. Why is it some form of cowardice to protect yourself and your family first, and foremost? I was jolted out of my smugness about being an armed avenger when, a few years ago, I read a news report that detailed a preventable death of a concealed carrier in Walmart.

      Two people entered the store with guns blazing, claiming to be starting a revolution. They separated, and advanced in two directions into the main store. A concealed carrier approached one of the shooters from behind, and shot and killed that person. Within seconds, the other shooter approached the concealed carrier from behind and killed him. Up to that report, my mind had accepted the notion that once you kill the bad guy (“stop the threat”), the threat was over. All the “training” propaganda about doing a 360 check after shooting was just so much blah, blah…until it wasn’t. Made the decision right there that the only successful gunfight is one you are not in. So, Rule 1 of a gunfight is, “Don’t be there”.

      So, yes. My self-defense weapon is for me and mine. I am a citizen, not Robo Cop.

      *I already had my turn in the barrel protecting and serving you, and countless others. That’s all I “owe” to society.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        Whatever gets you through the day and to sleep at night. No one knows exactly how they’ll react in a situation they’ve never been in.

        Hopefully you’ll never be in such a situation and haunted by the horrors of what you could have done to make the world just a bit better.

        If however you are ever in that situation and you still actively choose not to do the right thing may the knowledge of your choice and it’s outcome haunt you to your dying breath.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          The “right thing” for me, not for thee. Family and self first. If dead, I am useless to family. And so would be you to your family, if killed by a person you are trying to stop from harming others.

          You mentioned not knowing how one will react in circumstances. Is that not a failure to prepare? Not knowing indicates doubt. If you doubt how you will react, can you legitimately call people with a plan you don’t like “cowards”? I much prefer having a plan, rather than waiting to “see how things go”.

          Oh, am I happy the Samaritan killed the robber? Yes, actually. While acknowledging the Samaritan for doing a good thing, I can validly question his judgement. I will be there when the militia is called up. Meanwhile, my family is more important to me than are you and yours. In the textbooks, it is called “self-preservation”, long a means of prospering the expansion of the collective.

          BTW, I sleep fine at night, knowing I did not intervene in every evil event that resulted in horrible death and suffering around the world.

        2. avatar strych9 says:

          Point by point:

          The “right thing” for me, not for thee. Family and self first…

          I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with this as a general rule. What I’m saying is that saying “Me and mine ONLY” is itself selfish and the though of family is merely a justification for that selfishness because if the statement is to be believed then what’s being said is that even in a hypothetical situation where one could intervene with 0 risk to themselves they would still choose not to. This justification is a justification for anything where one could, theoretically be harmed, which is any and all situations. It’s a reason not to shovel the driveway because you might have a heartattack. It’s a reason not to stop and help an old lady change a tire because you might get run over. Hell, it’s a reason not to every drive because you might get killed by a drunk and then what would your family do?

          You mentioned not knowing how one will react in circumstances. Is that not a failure to prepare?

          Are you suggesting that it’s possible to prepare for every single possible outcome for every single possible circumstance? I know you’re smarter than to say that Sam. It’s not doubting your capability to admit that not everything is within your capability to control. It’s an admission of reality. The best boxer in the world still takes the occasional punch, is that failure to plan? No, it’s a failure to know the future which, at least at this point, is not possible to know.

          “Not knowing indicates doubt. If you doubt how you will react, can you legitimately call people with a plan you don’t like “cowards”? I much prefer having a plan, rather than waiting to “see how things go”.

          See above, and also “Under no circumstances will I do anything” isn’t really a plan. It’s a generic statement of unwillingness.

          “I will be there when the militia is called up. Meanwhile, my family is more important to me than are you and yours. In the textbooks, it is called “self-preservation”, long a means of prospering the expansion of the collective.

          This first sentence is in direct opposition to everything you have argued so far. Secondly, while self-preservation is indeed a trait that all living things possess it is not necessarily a means of “prospering the expansion of the collective”. It’s useful to a point and past that it becomes a hindrance to the species.

          BTW, I sleep fine at night, knowing I did not intervene in every evil event that resulted in horrible death and suffering around the world.

          I’m sure you do sleep fine and I’m also 100% sure that you know this argument is bullshit because no one has suggested that it’s even possible for you to prevent “every evil event” and I’ve seen you argue here for a long time so I know you’re smart enough to know this.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          ” “Me and mine ONLY” is itself selfish”

          Yes it is, intentionally so. Outside defense of the nation (including calling the militia to defend a state), I remain selfish in regard to my life, and the welfare of my family. Random instances of self-defense and national defense are not comparable. Inside my home, I am responsible to defend the legal, invited occupants. Outside the home, escape and evasion is the priority (partly driven by the fact I do not carry a firearm because it is too big). If there is no option to escape, I will defend with whatever tool I can get to. The other scenarios you present are completely unrelated to armed self-defense. Being attacked by someone using deadly force is not a normal circumstance of life. Thus, not comparable.

          “Are you suggesting that it’s possible to prepare for every single possible outcome for every single possible circumstance?”

          Are you serious? There are two (at least) levels of preparedness: general and specific. Regarding specific, anyone can conjure a situation for which no one could possibly be prepared. Depending on the profession, multiple scenarios can be simulated (or approximated), and those can often be drilled/trained until response is rote when needed. Are you prepared to prepared to save the mythical 16yr old girl, in dingy lighting, while wearing gloves, in a bulky winter coat, during an earthquake, with a portable heater overturning and starting a fire?

          ” “Under no circumstances will I do anything” isn’t really a plan. ”

          You are confusing refusing to engage with “under no circumstances”. Already noted that escape and evasion is the plan, with the alternative to fight when no other option exists; Plan A, Plan B.

          “Secondly, while self-preservation is indeed a trait that all living things possess it is not necessarily a means of “prospering the expansion of the collective”.”

          Are you saying that entities within a group deciding to survive at all costs is detrimental to the group? How so?

          “I’m sure you do sleep fine and I’m also 100% sure that you know this argument is bullshit because no one has suggested that it’s even possible for you to prevent “every evil event…”

          I still do not see that “moral imperative” to “save” anyone other than myself and family. I didn’t want to go there, because it seems too simplistic, but someone already reported an experience in an FBI simulation where the robber was shot in the head, but the reflex resulted in the victim being killed. Want to sleep with that one on your head?

          All in all, we make choices. I do not expect, encourage, nor demand anyone follow my “plan” of E&E. I do not judge anyone who would engage in the robber in the scenario of the original posting. I think it imprudent to do so, but that is me. To question your choice is not to demand you do it my way, but an inquiry into your thinking and motivation. The best result is other people thinking about their presumptions, assumptions and the reasonableness of their choice. Just kicking the tires, here; I might learn something.

        4. avatar Ralph says:

          I’m willing to defend any stranger who will pay my legal defense costs, my hospital bills and support my dependents.

          No takers? Thought so. Everyone wants a free ride — nobody wants to pay the ferryman.

        5. avatar Geoff "Bring the EDIT button back, will ya, TTAG?" PR says:

          “… and support my dependents. ”

          I can’t afford to support your bartenders, Ralph.

          *snicker* 😉

          (A little levity. That exchange was getting to be a bummer…)

        6. avatar Matt in SC says:

          Reply is for Sam as he has no reply button.
          “Oh, am I happy the Samaritan killed the robber?”
          He wasn’t a robber, him and his girl had just killed a cop at a fast food joint before going to Walmart.

          “BTW, I sleep fine at night, knowing I did not intervene in every evil event that resulted in horrible death and suffering around the world.”

          Come on, you more intelligent than that.

      2. avatar selfish bastar* says:

        +1
        Other people have the same opportunity to carry a concealed weapon that I do.
        Why should my family have to bear the risk of losing their husband and father if I intervene?
        My gun will protect me and mine only. You do you.

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          To be clear, I’m not talking about freezing up or being unsure of what to do. I’m speaking specifically and only of those who make this kind of justification to themselves in advance knowing full well that they would never intervene or help another because they have decided in advance not to.

          [Rampant and obvious hypothetical follows]

          A sixteen year old girl working at her first job at McDonald’s has the same options you do to carry a gun and defend herself? You’d just sit back and watch her get her face blown off by some drugged out wannabe gangster and then tell yourself “She should have illegally carried a gun that would have gotten her fired and which she can’t afford in the first place”? You’d try to place the blame on her? You actively think this in advance as a justification so that you don’t have to do anything?

          Seriously, and I never say shit like this on TTAG: What the actual fuck is wrong with you?

          Sounds like pure and simple cowardice to me. Some serious FUDD shit. The kind of tomfuckery that would have ensured this country never broke away from Britain. If I ever did such a thing I’d hope every member of my family disowned me.

          To butcher some Patrick Henry: Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of self-serving pusillanimity and the abrogation of common decency?

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “To butcher some Patrick Henry: Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of self-serving pusillanimity and the abrogation of common decency?”

          Wrong context; nation vs. individual.

          But to your question about a 16yr old girl. No 16yr old is worth robbing my family. My family outnumbers an individual, regardless of age. But let’s talk about even younger. This nation is now on a course to permit the murder of newborns. Once you cross that threshold (Roe v. Wade and its progeny) there is no societal “norm”, no national morality, no value to human life…so, my choice of which human to save is moral for me.

          Since we like numerical relativism (400,000 deaths per year attributed to medical treatment vs. 33,000 deaths per year due to firearm use), one 16yr old vs. ~800,000 babies destroyed per year. You do the math. I see exactly zero pro-gun, pro-2A supporters storming into abortion clinics defending the unarmed against deadly force. Why is that? Maybe because our ethics are patently situational? Maybe because it is illegal to kill abortionists even while they blissfully kill the innocent. Maybe because we all pick and choose our morality.

        3. avatar selfish bastar* says:

          What works for me, may not work for you. If someone on the interwebs disagrees, so be it.
          My take is that everyone is responsible for their own safety. Plan accordingly.

          I liked the examples provided about the 16 year old girl working at McDonalds. Life inst fair. It sometimes requires even 16 years old girls to be responsible for their own safety. It may not be legal for her to carry a gun or convenient for her to acquire one. Nonetheless, she is still responsible for her. Luckily, she can get creative. Where there is a will, there is a way. Cold as it may sound, I’m not risking my wife’s husband, my kid’s dad, or my family’s future to save someone not of my tribe. Disagree all you like.

          I also smiled at the analogy of shoveling the driveway. I shovel mine and occasionally shovel my neighbor’s. Would I go into my neighbor’s house if there was an armed intruder in there? Nope. Why? Too unacceptably high levels of liability and risk for me and my family… its my job as a husband and father to put my tribe first. And I won’t lose a wink of sleep if it upsets a stranger on the interwebs. Again, you do you.

        4. avatar Mad says:

          With your reasoning we would have no medal of Honor heroes, no running into burning buildings to save trapped victims.when you say me and mine I won’t call you a coward,but I will say your very selfish.besides in the wal Mart instance common sense says do a 360.this is where training comes in

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “With your reasoning we would have no medal of Honor heroes, no running into burning buildings to save trapped victims…”

          War is different, you and your allied tribe (other soldiers) are serving your individual tribes (families). As a member of the military, you voluntarily absorbed/accepted the responsibility to protect and defend your fire team, squad, platoon, etc. Just because you own or carry a gun does not obligate you to do anything other than protect yourself and family.

          As to running into burning buildings, well…no one is obligated to do that either (unless they sign-on to the responsibility as a professional. If my house is on fire, the family trapped inside, I would try to gather some people to help rescue those inside. HOWEVER, I do not know my neighbors, other than to say “hello”, and do not expect them to respond. Nor would I hold them accountable/responsible for failing to do something to help.

          Want to think about what happens when your house catches fire? Once lived in an area that had private fire suppression stationed on the property. That is, if you were willing to pay for 24/7 protection. So, one day a massive wild fire broke out. Several of the people whose homes did not have private fire protection lost their homes, and tried to file suit against the private fire suppression companies for failure to assist. The general claim was that the homes with fire protection were next door, and not threatened, so the fire protection should have been extended to the lot next door (or two lots down, or whatever). These people lost in court. The choice to pay for private fire protection was extended to every property owner. Only about 20% contracted for the protection, but the other 80% seemed certain that they also had claim on the fire protection. I can tell you that after the fire, the rebuilding effort was not a friendly, “let’s all pitch in and help” sort of thing. The people burned out of their homes were never reconciled to the fact they made a bad choice. I don’t remember any of the homeowners with private protection feeling that they were moral failures for having service that only protected their home. I often wondered if some of the burned out homeowners also thought their neighbor’s homeowners insurance policies should extend to the neighbors who decided to not have homeowner insurance.

        6. avatar Mad says:

          Spin it anyway you want but a person who find themselves in a life or death situation when an innocent person or persons are likely to killed and you have a way to possibly save them and don’t even try makes you a coward.you would not only bring shame on yourself but also your family

        7. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “…a person who find themselves in a life or death situation when an innocent person or persons are likely to killed and you have a way to possibly save them and don’t even try makes you a coward.”

          Your own malleable personal moral code imposes no obligation on me, or anyone else. Nor does my moral code demand you comply. This used to be a free country. You make your choices, and I’ll make mine. Nothing more complicated than that.

          If I ask you why you do a certain thing, it is not a disparagement. Maybe I’ll learn something. If you ask why I do a certain thing, I will be happy to explain. Neither one has to justify anything, because neither of us can enforce a judgement. And because neither of us is the all-knowing, all-seeing cosmic judge of right and wrong. (which is a whole ‘nuther discussion)

        8. avatar selfish bastar* says:

          I’m fine with being called selfish. Self-interest is what drives the greatest economic engine the world has ever known. I’m proud to be a participant and grateful to be a beneficiary of that.
          To your point about heroic acts: these days armed soldiers, firemen, volunteer search & rescue personnel, and other would be heroes are mostly a self selected group. In large part, they chose their career knowing it could likely present opportunities for extreme heroism.
          I seek no such opportunities. Others may, and may God bless them for it.
          You can call my lack of enthusiasm to risk so much for a stranger cowardice, you can call it risk recognition, you can call it self-preservation. I call it doing the right thing for my wife and kids.

        9. avatar strych9 says:

          Sam:

          I don’t think abortion is a good argument here and I don’t think it has to do with “choosing one’s ethics” vis a vis defense of another.

          Personally I find abortion, except as truly medically necessary to save the life of the mother in situations where both she and the unborn will die with the abortion, as disgusting. In cases where the mother would die I find it unfortunate but a very difficult decision. The new law in NY I would say crosses the boundary from where things might be debatable into full-fledged murder if people exercise the maximum freedom granted under the law.

          That said abortion is a pretty tough nut because of the debate about where life begins. I think everyone with two firing neurons can agree that once a kid is born or in the process of being born it’s alive (provided this isn’t a still birth) and killing it is murder. Before that though it’s a philosophical question about conception vs heart beat vs brain activity vs survival outside the womb. Even a quality dictionary offers pretty vague definitions for “life” that are open to interpretation and debate.

          Two people who believe in the 2A can disagree about where life begins and therefore where abortion becomes murder and by extension where justifiable defense of another begins. Assuming they both possess an IQ greater than single digits they probably cannot disagree that the killing of a 16 year old girl in a McDonald’s during the commission of felony armed robbery is murder.

          And, I’ll reiterate yet again: I’m not talking about a statement made with caveats that take into account the different situations that might arise. There are many reasons, valid reasons, for which one may choose not to intervene in a situation. There is a huge difference between saying “My gun is for me and mine ONLY” and saying “I would be unlikely to intervene”. The latter implies an understanding of nuance while the former is an open admission that the person saying it doesn’t actually give a shit about other people at all.

          It is my personal opinion that to decide in advance that there is NO situation where one would intervene is a selfish and unethical thing to do. As I said before, something to which you didn’t reply, the statement “My gun is for me and mine only” logically means that even in a hypothetical situation where intervention involves ZERO risk to the person who made the statement they would still choose to do nothing. At that point I don’t think the person saying it has a leg to stand on.

          It also flies in the face of your objection to my use of Patrick Henry’s statement (to which I openly admitted to butchering). If one would only use their gun to defend themselves or family and has made this decision in advance then they have, by definition, ruled out taking part in national defense.

          I find absolute statements on this topic to be foolish. To always intervene is stupid Rambo type bullshit. To never intervene is cowardice. Both ends of the spectrum are stupid, politically dubious and ethically indefensible.

        10. avatar Sam I Am says:

          ” There is a huge difference between saying “My gun is for me and mine ONLY” and saying “I would be unlikely to intervene”. The latter implies an understanding of nuance while the former is an open admission that the person saying it doesn’t actually give a shit about other people at all.”

          If the last sentence is true, what is the loss? A person, by having a gun, somehow must submit to some sort of morality of self-defense that the gun owner does not subscribe to? You do realize that “morality” is a made-up concept that morphs to support whatever favorite thing the “moral” champion wants? Look at the suppression of speech. It has become a moral infraction to make anyone uncomfortable as a result of words. Not impolite, rude, insulting, but morally repugnant. Where is the cosmic law that converted use of the First Amendment into a moral litmus test? Free speech is only free speech if it doesn’t alter my mood? That is the state of speech today. A change in the “morality” of speaking your mind. In this life, morality is not an immovable object. So, let’s set up a different scenario – same thing, only you do not have a gun. Now, are you morally obligated to rush the armed robber? Or is it simply the idea that having a gun means you are more responsible for outcomes than the police?

          As to comparing the robbery posting to abortion, there is a direct comparison – threat to innocent life. The idea that after conception a living embryo just might become a frog, or a giraffe, or something other than a human is indefensible. A chicken egg will hatch a chicken if not aborted. Do we really believe that egg can spawn a pony? We are now seeing legislation being proposed in states that will allow the killing of a successfully delivered baby. That is somehow an innocent life that we choose not to defend with deadly force? Again, choosing morality to fit our particular opinion of the moment.

          But you actually identified the folly of all this moralizing – it is a matter of what you want, rather than an objective measure of anything. We can condemn people for not “saving” innocent life with a handgun, but we must leave room for disagreement over the killing of the most defenseless because opinion? Politics? Is this not situational ethics?

          Now, Patrick Henry….

          There is great difference between using a personal firearm to defend strangers, and being part of a second family (militia, military). The founders were defending themselves, and their families…and their mates on the battlefield. In the military, you agree to accept the risks, and the responsibility to defend your unit and your mates. In a self-defense environment, you do not absorb the responsibility to unexpectedly defend strangers at the cost of your own life (and the ruin of your own family). There is a reason self-defense is called “self”- defense.

        11. avatar strych9 says:

          selfish bastard:

          There’s a difference between self-interest and selfish. A self-interested person acts in ways that benefit themselves but not necessarily to the exclusion of others. A selfish person acts in ways that benefit themselves and does so to the exclusion of others.

          The latter is the problem. The former is a normal person.

        12. avatar Joe in San Antonio says:

          We live in a culture that increasingly values self over others. I make no pretenses of being a cop, but I respect what they do, however I am not going to let someone else sit in harms way when I can do something about it. Our nation was founded on respect for the individual but defense of the collective.

        13. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “…I am not going to let someone else sit in harms way when I can do something about it.”

          This^. Yes. You do you, if that is your choice.

      3. avatar PATRON49IFT says:

        I wasn’t there so I can’t say for sure but I wonder how I would have reacted in that split second he made the decision to intervene..Wonder if you (and me) would feel differently if the clerk had been your mom or wife or daughter who was saved?

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Wonder if you (and me) would feel differently if the clerk had been your mom or wife or daughter who was saved?”

          “Saving” (protecting) my “mom, wife, or daughter is precisely who I would risk my life for. Do I expect a stranger to sacrifice their life defending my family? Absolutely not. Would I be eternally gratefully if a stranger did intervene. Absolutely yes.

          If I cannot hold law enforcement accountable for not “saving” my family, by what morality, or logic, can I hold a random person for not “saving” my family.

          Are we not being unreasonable in expecting to be unarmed ourselves, but depending on others to be armed in order to possibly “save” us? Choosing to rely on some unknown element in society to protect us from armed attack is no different from expecting the government to protect us from ourselves, and things that go bump in the night.

          Everyone makes a choice about whether they will defend themselves (have a firearm handy when needed), even if that means leaving a gun-free city or state. Is having a firearm the single most consideration about job and residence? Not necessarily, but we still make a personal choice about it. One of life’s choices may put us at high risk for armed attack, without the permission and means to protect ourselves. Life is about trade-offs. Best to understand that and recognize decisions have consequences.

          At the moment, I face the dilemma of moving to a more gun-unfriendly location in order to have access to medical care not available where I live. If I cannot defend myself/family, and die under attack, there is no need for the medical care sought. However, If the medical care sought is unavailable, I could end up with no need to possible defend myself/family. No….I do not have an answer for this situation, yet. But I do know whichever choice will have consequences; part of living.

      4. avatar cgray says:

        You have an offensive personality.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “You have an offensive personality.”

          As opposed to what?

      5. avatar Jason says:

        So Sam, I’m kinda curious, how far does your “me and mine only” stance go? What about people in a burning building or car, or perhaps an earthquake damaged structure, or really any of a million different situations where you might save a life, but only by exposing yourself so some risk, even life threatening risk.

        Is your stance still “Fuck the World, only me and mine”? or is this only a gun related thing?

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Is your stance still “Fuck the World, only me and mine”? or is this only a gun related thing?”

          It is strictly a self-defense matter. Now I know this is unusual, but wife and I are both former career military. Long ago, we discussed a number of life scenarios, and decided generally how to deal with them. We understood and agreed upon the risks we would assume, knowing some decisions would not work out as planned. Once we decided to take up shooting, and own a gun, we talked about the laws, the risks defended against, and the risks absorbed (security of firearms, shoot/don’t shoot, escape and evade (including a code word that would result in immediate exit, without question or delay), liability insurance, training, expansion of firearms collection, and a host of other considerations that we gleaned from reading “gun blogs” (especially TTAG). Essentially, we are/were both familiar with the risk mitigation matrix, and how to use it. I trust others do the same, without regard to my welfare for their decisions.

        2. avatar Jason says:

          Well Sam,

          I have to say that your response makes it even more confusing to me. As career military I assume that you were willing to go to some foreign land to fight some bullshit war (i.e. every war the US has involved itself in since WWII), possibly take injuries or death for no articulable reason beyond Hoorah and the American way and such, ordered to do so by a bunch of corrupt politicians who are only in it for the dollars, but your not willing to step up for the lady behind the counter, at the store you shop at, presumably on a regular basis, and whose name you might know, that some thug is threatening with a gun.

          How did “me and mine” go from the entire nation to almost no one.

          Since the title of this piece is “Good Samaritan Shoots and Kills Would-Be Robber, Protecting Store Clerk and Customers” and since many POTG like to Bible thump a bitI guess I should throw this in. After giving the parable of the “Good Samaritan”, Jesus says:

          Luke 10:36-37 New International Version (NIV)

          36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”
          37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

          I’m not especially religious myself, but it is food for thought.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I assume that you were willing to go to some foreign land to fight some bullshit war (i.e. every war the US has involved itself in since WWII), possibly take injuries or death for no articulable reason ”

          You would be absolutely wrong, superficial and uninformed.

          This will take awhile, and might not fit your mind set….

          I believed that military service was an honorable profession, that the nation needed people willing to subordinate their future for awhile in an effort to preserve the nation. Being single, I had only by parents to consult. They understood that I might end up not being around for the next birthday, or to help them in their old age. But they both endured WW2, and understood. As time went along, I met my future ex-wife, and made it clear that I was bound for a life where the risk might be limitless, but it was my calling to serve in the military. We made a joint, conscious decision to get married, anyway (The burden eventually became too much for my then wife and children, and we split). Shortly after flight school, I read an article about interviews with the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff. The most interesting inquiry was whether the Chiefs, if they determined the Vietnam War was unwinnable, would resign if the President ordered them to continue the war, regardless of the realities. To a man (there were only men at that level then) the Chiefs declared they would remain on duty, and carry out orders. At that actual moment, my purpose changed from general service to the country, to a very personal determination to do whatever I could to limit the casualties. From that day forward, the motivation was to fly and fight to protect our forces, and help cover their eventual retreat. I was not flying and fighting because, “Ordnung ist ordnung”. Later, I was assigned to units with a nuclear war mission. My motivation was to be part of the US forces that posed a deterrent threat to the Rooskies, even if we never actually went into nuclear combat. At once, I was defending my family, and my nation.

          Perhaps my service can be summed thus: “A soldier writes a blank check to their Government in the amount of up to, and including, their life in service to the nation. Next time you exercise your God-given rights and freedom of choice, thank a Soldier, not a Politician”. (source unknown)

          In short, in military service, you expect to be called upon to sacrifice your life during your service. In everyday life, you make no such bargain with the strangers all around you.

        4. avatar Mad says:

          bULL shi___it

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “bULL shi___it”

          Since I cannot decipher your literary brilliance, could you dumb it down a bit for me? Would like to understand your viewpoint.

          (BTW – commentary such as “bULL shi___it” certifies the leftists/liberals/statists are correct to call us “deplorables”)

        6. avatar Jason says:

          The purpose of my comment was not to disparage your motivation for military service, but rather to ask how it is exactly you got from there to here. How exactly is limiting casualties and covering retreat there any different from from doing something similar here. Or is it that in country you simply had no choice so you just made the best of a bad situation? I really am not able to see how they are different at all. Perhaps it’s just me.

        7. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Or is it that in country you simply had no choice so you just made the best of a bad situation?

          Yes.

          ” I really am not able to see how they are different at all. Perhaps it’s just me”

          Military service is a voluntary acceptance of responsibility for others. Owning a gun, even carrying a gun imposes no such obligation.

          As a soldier, you, through your representatives, and the military structure, had a call on my service, my life. As a private citizen, you have no such call on my life (or my family’s). As noted before, when I bought my .22, I signed no pledge, no oath of office, no obligation to render any assistance to anyone I choose not to assist. Another person’s moral code does not obligate me to do anything. In return, I do not criticize or disrespect you for acting differently. Of the few modern phrases I endorse, “You do you, and I’ll do me” is one of the best. Replaces the old, “Live and let live”.

        8. avatar Jason says:

          After all, if the gun man pulls the trigger, that clerks American Dream is every bit as over as it would be if communists ruled the world, probably more so since slaves are at least still alive and perhaps have some hope of future redemption.

      6. avatar Garrison Hall says:

        But the problem with your line of thought ignores the essential reality of an armed robbery. Just because the robber isn’t pointing the gun at you—at that moment—in no way guarantees that, having decided to shoot the store clerk, he then decides to turn his gun on customers, including you. It is errant foolishness to baldly assume that someone pulling an armed robbery “just” wants the money. Once that gun is out everyone in range is a potential victim.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “It is errant foolishness to baldly assume that someone pulling an armed robbery “just” wants the money. Once that gun is out everyone in range is a potential victim.”

          Agree. And if you didn’t/couldn’t escape, you have no choice but to defend yourself and family. Even in the scenario you describe, there is no obligation to stand when you could exit. Wife and I work to make it a habit to evaluate escape routes when driving, walking, entering buildings. When you can, beat feet. When you cannot evade, fight with everything you’ve got.

      7. avatar MLee says:

        @ Sam I Am
        I’ll keep this rather short as it comes down to a few basic traits of human nature. Like Harry Callahan said, “a man has to know his limitations”

        Every situation is fluid and dynamic. What we don’t know is if this good guy prevented a tragedy. The perp could have killed the clerk then the good guy because the good guy was too much of a coward to do what had to be done. There really are no heroes, just those that keep a calm head and do what needs to be done.

        I know a person who carries and is all into guns and all that. He worked at the parts counter at a auto parts company before quitting to twist wrenches. But he flatly told me one day he wouldn’t protect someone else. I gotta say in all honesty, I lost every single bit of respect I ever had for this guy and my opinion of him turned into WHAT A GUTLESS COWARD. He’s not worthy to stand in my shadow. I should have said straight to his face, “You’re a fu—ing gutless coward” I suspect my disdain at that moment was probably clearly evident anyway. I was really quite surprised to hear that. Clearly you don’t fight in a burning house but when the time and opportunity presents itself, you use the nuts god gave you.

        I question anyone’s ability to protect themselves if they are unwilling to protect others. In my opinion, if a person doesn’t have the guts to protect others, when the time comes to protect themselves, they’ll likely stand in the corner and piss in their depends and just hope everything turns out OK.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “In my opinion, if a person doesn’t have the guts to protect others, when the time comes to protect themselves, they’ll likely stand in the corner and piss in their depends and just hope everything turns out OK.”

          Do you have any data for that? It could be helpful.

          As to thinking someone a coward for refusing a gunfight as the first option, well…that is your opinion, and your respect is yours to give as you choose. Now, a little insight…

          I do not carry a gun outside the house (the Beretta Neos is too long to carry concealed usefully – besides, it is .22). However, if you enter my house unwanted, I have already made the decision you will die. If the question is either you or me, I choose you. I may have to unload an entire clipazine with the thingy in the back that goes up, but you will not be given a moment’s benefit of the doubt. That is my home defense plan, my choice, and I bear the consequences of the result of defending myself and family.

          Outside the home, if I cannot E&E, then every object within reach becomes a weapon to defend myself and family, including teeth.

          Is evading a gunfight not a variation of “getting off the X”?

      8. avatar possum says:

        the Lone Ranger had one of the badassedest rigs of them all. From hat holster to horse. , Hi Ho Silver Away,,, he was cool

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “the Lone Ranger had one of the badassedest rigs of them all. From hat holster to horse. , Hi Ho Silver Away,,, he was cool”

          Indeed he was. I remember being allowed to stay up an extra half hour on Thursday nights so brother and I could watch the program.

          Sam Spade, Sergeant Friday, Charlie Chan and Boston Blackie. Yep, remember it all so well. (‘Course, my car keys are still missing).

      9. avatar NoSamIAm says:

        Funny, you sound just like that deputy sheriff in Broward county that waited outside while those kids were being killed. He too just wanted to go home and so he did nothing.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Funny, you sound just like that deputy sheriff in Broward county that waited outside while those kids were being killed. ”

          The only similarity is that neither of us (Broward Deputy or me) has a legal obligation to “save” anybody. Call it moral equivalence, if you like. But it stops there.

          Unlike the Broward deputy, as a gun owner I took no oath of office, oath of fealty, oath of service to humanity. No where in the firearm sales transaction did I sign (or even see) an acknowledgement that public safety is my responsibility. I do not demand that any other gun owner absorb the responsibility to “save” me. (Of course, I would not decline assistance).

          Where is the cosmic duty to “save” other people? Says who?

          Let’s talk about the “morality” imperative to protect others. Where is that written? Who decides? Based on what? There are laws that prohibit murder. Based on what? “Morality”? Who decides whether it is moral to murder another person?

          “Morality” is a shared opinion, available to be shaped to whatever goal is popular enough to permit a law defining that morality. Now, we know that overall it is quite useful to prohibit murder, but what if that usefulness collides with a different benefit? And what if the society decided that the different benefit is superior to the morality that prohibits murder? What happens? The New York law that permits murdering a full term baby. We have two moralities in conflict, and society decides what is the overall “moral” action.

          What, precisely is the moral difference between murdering someone to acquire their property, and murdering a full term baby only inches away from exiting the womb alive? Is the convenience of the mother morally superior to the life of a fully formed infant, inches away from live birth? Again, says who? The society that permits killing a baby inches away from freedom, that’s who.

          Many gun owners find it a moral imperative to defend other people. I do not. Nor do I have intense enmity toward those who moral code is different. Find me that universally accepted moral code that rules the cosmos telling me I must put myself and family at risk for the sake of another.

          This nation was not settled by a bunch of collectivist idealists who were looking to establish a morally ideal community. No, it was settled by people who wanted to escape the constraints of community, and live their lives as they saw fit, unbothered by a bunch of busybodies nosing into their business at every turn. Those “rugged individualists” were content to claim land surrounded by harsh conditions, miles from anyone else. In one instance people decided it was morally correct to allow a man to have as many wives as he thought interesting. In other instances that notion was morally incorrect. Which of the two societies got it right? Says who?

    2. avatar jwm says:

      Let’s take it a step further than a random armed robbery, S9. An army of antifa types are about to install AOC in the white house at gun point. The army has decided to sit this one out.

      How many of those ‘me and mine’ douchebags can be counted on to meet the threat?

      And what if these ‘me and mine’ douchebags get their wish and we have less .gov and police? Are they going to take up the slack?

      The ‘me and mine’ douche types go way beyond a simple random robbery.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        That’s a false equivalence, jwm. A coup d’état is a direct attack on me and mine. A stranger looking down the barrel of a gun — which might never be fired — isn’t a direct attack on me and mine.

        And I still want to know who’s going to pay my legal, hospital and funeral expenses if I lose the gunfight. Some stranger? I don’t think so. That stranger wouldn’t even come to my funeral.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          Who’s going to pay your expenses if you fall fighting antifa? It’s the same thing. If you have an excuse not to go you will use it. So will a lot of others. And then antifa wins.

          Its the mindset that has us in the mess we’re in today. Let the other guy do the work, I’m looking after me and mine. Only the other guy is doing the same.

        2. avatar Ralph says:

          “It’s the same thing.”

          Not even close. Antifa is a threat to me and mine.

        3. avatar Geoff "Bring the EDIT button back, will ya, TTAG?" PR says:

          “Who’s going to pay your expenses if you fall fighting antifa?”

          Seriously, JWM?

          If Ralph falls giving Antifa what they deserve, a GoFundMe announced by TTAG and spread by others in the POTG Universe will pay his funeral expenses and then some.

          (Note – It won’t make a dent in his outstanding bar tab… 🙂 )

      2. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “The ‘me and mine’ douche types go way beyond a simple random robbery.”

        This is persuasion, objective analysis, intellectual seriousness, comparing and contrasting? Regardless of the political loyalty, thinking to make one’s viewpoint superior through the use of insult, disparagement and foul language indicates a common core.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          It really is simple, sam. You talked about the baby being aborted as it was born. A nation gets that way, goes down that path when most of the ‘good’ folks adopt the ‘me and mine’ attitude.

          The downward spiral of a people, nation, culture does not start with the leadership. It starts when the man in the street can’t see any need but his own.

          Persuasion, effective analysis, yada, yada, are just mental gymnastics for those that try to justify their own hand in the destruction of our nation and culture. We’ve already established in many comment threads here that you love to argue. Arguing is so much more satisfying than doing.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Persuasion, effective analysis, yada, yada, are just mental gymnastics for those that try to justify their own hand in the destruction of our nation and culture.”

          Are you endorsing lifeless echo chambers to reinforce our own prejudices?

          BTW, “debate” is quite different from “argue”. “Debate” is a contest of ideas; “argue” is a contest of angers. “Debate” requires “persuasion” and “effective analysis”, “argue” just requires loss of self-control.

        3. avatar Zman says:

          Sam I am needs to stop spending so much time on here arguing with people, his family is waiting for him at the dinner table.
          He just left the store that was being robbed, the clerk being rapped in the back, he leaves his money on the counter, and walks out of the store knowing he paid for his goods, so he still has his morals. He will sleep good tonight. His family has food in their belly’s. And the clerk now has an unwanted child in her belly. Along with a messed psychological issue to deal with, followed by an abortion and the fact she probably still has to work at the same store to pay for it all. Great way to help out a fellow American. Oh and the bad guy, still alive is at the next store doing it all over again.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “He just left the store that was being robbed, the clerk being rapped in the back, he leaves his money on the counter, and walks out of the store knowing he paid for his goods, so he still has his morals.”

          A swing and a miss: “The Mighty Casey just struck out.”

          In the scenario you created, I would be long gone, without taking the groceries, much less taking time to fish out money to lay on the counter.

          Projecting your morals on someone else is immoral; a natural human trait that leads people to want to control those around them. Do you feel better for claiming the high ground? How ’bout that….feelz.

          “Morals” are shape-shifters, almost always becoming situational ethics. Since we are all free souls, answerable only to ourselves, we can adapt our moral code to whatever is self-serving at any moment. Of course, if there is a cosmic, universal moral code in existence, we would be required to answer for our inability to live strictly by that code, wouldn’t we?

          If your preferred moral code demands you rush headlong into a gunfight, that is terrific. But your code doesn’t make you a better person than me, because somewhere along the line, you fall short of my moral code, making you a lesser person. It all comes out in the wash. A horse a piece. Macht Nichts. Comme ci comme ça. You go that way, I’ll go this way.

        5. avatar Mad says:

          Maybe as your running away the robber shoots but missed and you take the round in your ass.at least you could brag about being wounded because you ran

    3. avatar Kendahl says:

      Lawyer Andrew Branca, author of The Law of Self Defense, has a question for anyone willing to use force of any kind to thwart a violent crime. Suppose, after you win the fight, it all goes bad. You are convicted in criminal court and sentenced to decades in prison. You and your family are broke from paying your lawyer. The bad guy, or his family if he didn’t survive, successfully sues for what’s left. On your last day in prison, will you still believe it was worth doing?

      The course of the aftermath will depend on whether the local judicial system supports or opposes self defense. That matters at both the criminal and civil level. If it doesn’t, self defense “insurance” is vital to pay for your legal defense. (Either way, ACLDN is a bargain at $135 for the first year and $95 for renewals.)

      During the incident, will your intervention make the situation better or worse? If the robber is calm and just wants the money without harming any one, not intervening is probably the better choice. It’s different if he is agitated and aggressive. Even then, you need a window of opportunity so that it isn’t futile suicide.

      As far as not being a police officer is concerned, most likely you aren’t a medical professional either. That doesn’t mean you should limit yourself to calling 911 if you see someone choking and you know the Heimlich maneuver or you see someone collapse with no heartbeat and are qualified in CPR.

    4. avatar Nigel the expat says:

      Guess I’m a douchebag. I’m good with that.

  3. avatar jwm says:

    This is why suppressors need to be sold over the counter, no questions asked. Ever fire a gun in a building? Not counting a range of course.

    Folks can suffer a real injury doing that.

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      Just stand next to someone who’s firing an M44 Nagant indoors, even on a really nice range, and you’ll know.

    2. avatar UpInArms says:

      Yeah, but… ever tried to do concealed carry with a suppressor?

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        GemTech Pillbottle to the rescue!

        No, in reality I don’t think very many people carry a can around with them. That said how many people who carry an EDC gun carry earpro and eyepro in case they have to use the gun? Also virtually none.

        1. avatar Geoff "Bring the EDIT button back, will ya, TTAG?" PR says:

          “No, in reality I don’t think very many people carry a can around with them.”

          The only semi-realistic carry option is that integrally-suppressed 9mm that kinda looks like a ‘Star Wars’ blaster.

          And even that is not very concealable. It takes sheer volume to quiet gunshots. Full stop…

    3. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Well, I, for one, do not ever intend to EDC a suppressor, since I don’t leave home planning to fire it. I’d rather have a bigger gun and more ammo, and risk the faint possibility of hearing damage. Now, the CLERK should have had a big gun and a suppressor, both, since she didn’t need to carry or conceal it.

      1. avatar Geoff "Bring the EDIT button back, will ya, TTAG?" PR says:

        ” I’d rather have a bigger gun and more ammo, and risk the faint possibility of hearing damage.”

        You’re probably also a lot like my dad, Larry. Years of turbojets (early Allison turboprops, in his case) screaming in his ears have already dinged his hearing rather substantially.

        Kinda tough to remove what was already taken, long ago… 🙂

        1. avatar Mad says:

          You are talking about years of noises versus a seldom event.when I practice I always have my protection on.but if attacked and I drop some punk I doubt I would even hear the bang

        2. avatar Geoff "Bring the EDIT button back, will ya, TTAG?" PR says:

          Back in the 1950s and 60s, hearing protection in the military was seldom practiced, except in the most extreme environments…

  4. avatar Manse Jolly says:

    Is the shooter exposed to a Civil suit from the resulting death?

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Manse Jolly,

      A brief search of the Internet indicates that Georgia has civil immunity for righteous self-defense. Thus, the defender should not face any significant civil liability (assuming that law enforcement deems the act to be righteous self-defense).

  5. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    I apologize in advance for sounding like Debbie Downer:

    If you are going to intercede in an armed robbery, I am thinking that you should NOT put rounds on center mass of the armed robber if he/she is pointing a handgun into a cashier’s face. If the bullet impact/s cause the armed robber to flinch and pull the trigger, that won’t end well for the cashier whose face is in front of the robber’s muzzle.

    I am thinking that you can intervene in one of two ways:
    (1) Headshot (instantly shuts down the armed robber without any ability to flinch).
    (2) Yell out and cause the armed robber to turn their gun away from the cashier’s face before putting rounds into center mass.

    Okay boys and girls, go ahead and lay it on me — tell me where I am wrong in this case.

    1. avatar DrewN says:

      The big boys can try for brain stem shots, but since I don’t spend inordinate time in a shoot house or doing force on force on Uncle’s dime, I’ll stick with center mass. Unless maybe I was just feet away and their was a decent backstop.

    2. avatar strych9 says:

      Yelling could cause the guy to flinch and blow the clerk’s face off and headshots don’t just shut someone down if they’re not to the right part of the brain.

      HA! Consider yourself laid upon like a pile of warm laundry that’s been found by a cat!

      No, really Murphy is an asshole. Sometimes you just have to work with what you’ve got and hope for the best and do so in the knowledge that it might all still go terribly wrong.

      1. avatar SoCalJack says:

        True. Not real life situation, but I did a FBI shooting simulator for a class and one of the situations was in a store with the BG yelling and pointing a gun at the cashier and I thought the BG was ready to shoot. I had the drop on him so I shot the BG, head shot, and he reflexed by shooting the cashier in the head. Can this happen in real life, yup, that’s Murphy’s Law.

    3. avatar Okiedokie says:

      I would not attempt to shoot someone who had a gun in someone else’s face. You may be immune from prosecution or civil suit for your shot, but if the robber shot the clerk as a result of your shot, you could be liable, or at least have some lawyer bills to pay defending. Better to wait for an opening with less risk.

  6. avatar RV6Driver says:

    You go rollin’ around the southeast (especially Florida and Georgia) with plans to rob and plunder you’re garunteed to catch a hot one and it won’t likely be from the cops…..

    1. avatar Geoff "Bring the EDIT button back, will ya, TTAG?" PR says:

      You would think that word would be getting around by this time that people carry, and they may well offer thugs of all colors and ethnicities a chance to take ‘the room-temperature challenge’.

      But, no. It seems to be making little impact in the violent crime rates. After initially dropping precipitously when concealed-carry became common starting about 25 years ago, crime rates have pretty much leveled off…

  7. avatar SurfGW says:

    I hope there is a GoFundMe for the “sheepdog” because he will be in a world of legal bills.
    No good deed goes unpunished especially when it counters the prevailing narrative.

    1. avatar Bcb says:

      Not where he lives. He’ll be just fine legally.

  8. avatar NORDNEG says:

    Good man with a gun, kills punk bad man with a gun, good job…

  9. avatar former water walker says:

    Golly gee I just got back from Wal-Mart,Aldi AND Family Dollar. A triple play😄I DO NOT want armed checkout people. Minimum wage caliber doesn’t cut it. That very same Family Dollar had an armed robbery with an employee SHOT in 2017. At night too. Would I intervene in a robbery? Mebbe…I intervened years ago in Chiraq. Completely unarmed too. But I wasn’t about to turn 65. I’m with Ralph on this one.

  10. avatar thunder says:

    my conceal carry training(illinois, so two days) it was mentioned that in this state you could count on near six figures in legal bills when you pull your gun, even in a cut and dried “good” shoot. $100,000 would near break me.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      ” $100,000 would near break me.”

      Look into prepaid legal services for self-defense events. I don’t carry a gun, but even a self-defense shooting inside the home will be financially inconvenient in the extreme.

  11. avatar Chris Mallory says:

    Lay off this idiotic “sheepdog” meme. Sheepdogs are used to herd the sheep to be sheared or slaughtered. That does describe the job done by the typical cop, but it does not describe a citizen stopping a crime.

    1. avatar Geoff "Bring the EDIT button back, will ya, TTAG?" PR says:

      If cops were actual ‘sheepdogs’, all of them would be willing to die to protect the flock from wolves.

      For today’s cops, far too many of them will put “getting home safely” as job one.

      (We have some good cops in TTAG. I’m directing that comment to the type of cops who ‘responded’ at Parkland, by not going into harm’s way to protect those kids…)

    2. avatar Weapon Of War says:

      Shitcan the “sheepdog” thing PERIOD. It’s fkn idiotic. And dangerous for cops and soldiers to think they are “sheepdogs”. Eventually, bad things happen to folks to whom cops and soldiers consider “sheep”

  12. avatar The Pontificator says:

    Ironically Family Dollar Stores are posted “Gun-Free” zones. It’s a tiny little sign at the entrance and may or may not carry any legal weight depending on the state in which the store is located.

    (These signs carry no legal weight in South Carolina don’t know about Georgia)

  13. avatar possum says:

    play dead , after the gunfire stops scurry away before the cops show up with pitch forks and dogs

  14. avatar David Walters says:

    For many years and in my neighborhood I’d intervene in assaults, beat downs and threats against others in the neighborhood.

    Then one day the wife of the President of the HOA asked me why I didn’t spell to a neighbor who had parked his RV at his home for longer than the HOA rules allowed. I told her I wasn’t the HOA and that wasn’t my job.

    She then cited the many other instances in which I’d intervened to stop either major or minor criminality and she said, “You were a vigilante then but you won’t step in now?”

    A vigilante? Huh?

    Seeing myself through the unflattering eyes of others even when I thought I was doing the right thing when others wouldn’t do anything helped me make the decision to never intervene again. And, I haven’t.

    I have to agree with Sam on this one. The gunfight you’ll always win is the one which you avoid.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Thanks for the call-out. I have my own issues with the HOA here, and your report is causing me to re-evaluate. Not sure I am consistent with how I deal with the HOA.

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      David Walters,

      Don’t let one fool stop you from being a high-quality person.

      My neighbor across the street has dangerous German shepherds that keep getting loose and I keep intervening. So far everyone thanks me for doing my best to ensure that those dogs don’t maim or kill anyone.

      And even if someone does cast me in a less than favorable light for my actions, I will continue to do it because it is the right thing to do.

      1. avatar Derringer Dave says:

        I’m curious how you “intervene” against dangerous German Shepherd dogs running loose.
        I’m a dog person, but that is one type of dog I would not dare to approach, a dangerous German Shepherd on the loose! It happened once in our neighborhood, and my skills with dogs were only enough to get me home safely, that’s all.
        Did you intervene with pepper spray, or by calling Animal Control?
        I’m sure you didn’t shoot them, because if anyone other than a cop or a Congressman shoots a dog, they go to jail.

  15. avatar 22winmag says:

    Woah, woah, woah!

    Nice shootin’ Tex!

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