RF was interviewed on KUT’s Texas Standard radio program this week to talk personal defense after the hold-up of a San Antonio mall jewelry store resulted in gunfire and one death. Click here to listen.
RF was interviewed on KUT’s Texas Standard radio program this week to talk personal defense after the hold-up of a San Antonio mall jewelry store resulted in gunfire and one death. Click here to listen.
I don’t know if you heard the intro, RF:
Audio:
“You’re a concealed handgun license holder… well these days it’s just a license holder, right? You don’t have to carry [concealed] anymore!
… One man… witnessed a robbery underway in a mall. He shot at the robber and injured him. But in the exchange, police say four bystanders were also wounded. Another unarmed man who attempted to intervene lost his life.”
“Transcript”:
Two men were robbing the Kay Jewelers in the mall. One of the suspects was reportedly waving a gun and shot and killed a bystander, who had tried to stop the robbers.
Another man, who some news sources are calling a “good samaritan,” pulled out his licensed concealed handgun and fired his weapon, critically wounding one of the robbers. The suspects shot and killed him.
Fake news fail from the Texas Standard.
So, from listening to the interview, do we have it on pretty good authority that the unarmed Samaritan got involved and was perforated before the GGWAG shot one of the bad guys?
There was a lot of discussion about this on here when the story broke and I’d say that information, if correct, is a game changer. If they’ve already shot someone then I don’t think there’s any reason to second guess the GGWAG’s choice to draw and shoot. Seems to me, if that’s the case, the BG and the unarmed Samaritan made the choice for him.
More like some ‘hero’ (read: idiot –sorry, but charging an armed guy while unarmed when lives are not being taken is idiotic) needlessly escalated the situation to his own fatality, and luckily some licensed carrier also present was more or less forced into action once shots were flying to defend himself and resolved the situation as well as could be expected.
You assume that the first guy knew they were armed. That’s not necessarily the case. He may not have known they were armed until he had initiated contact with them.
Either way, two on one ain’t real bright but look at all the “Use your fists, you don’t need a gun” folks on the interwebz. They’ve never been in a fight but a lot of them sure seem to think they’d go straight out Conor McGregor on some people.
“And I’m down with the shit too/
For the stupid motherfuckers want to try to use Kung-Fu/
Instead of a MAC-10, he tried scrapping/
Slugs in his back and that’s what the fuck happens…”
If he did figure they were unarmed that was a foolish assumption.
Damnnnnnn thats a good looking cop.
He must work out.
I knew someone else would jump on that.
I was going to say “He’s probably married”.
Was it George Carlin that said if you swing both ways you double your chances of getting lucky?
I don’t recall Carlin saying that, but it’s certainly something that sounds like he would say it.
IIRC, something about your chances of a date on Saturday night were doubled…
Either way, it can’t hurt for the OP to ask. Maybe the cop has a hot wife who’s into that kinda thing.
“From today, dialing 911 won’t get you the Emergency Services, and that’s not the only thing that’s changing! Nicer ambulances, faster response times and better-looking drivers mean they’re not just the Emergency Services, they’re your Emergency Services. So, remember the new number! 0118 999! 88199, 9119 725! 3!”
When did Aaron Hernandez get out of jail?
From RF’s commentary:
“If you have a firearm on you and you see a robbery and there is no threat of violence that you think is credible and is going to leave to death or grievous bodily harm, You’re best off just to leave the situation alone. It’s only stuff.”
Isn’t an armed robbery, by definition, a threat of death or grievous bodily harm? Come on. Dude points a gun at a human being and demands stuff. The threat is assumed. Threat of severe bodily injury is the difference between armed (or aggravated) robbery and lesser crimes involving taking people’s stuff.
I spend a lot of time in banks. I have often pondered what I would do if I witnessed an armed robbery (i.e. thug is pointing a gun at a person). My plan: If innocent life is being threatened it’s game on. Draw, aim, wait for a clear backdrop, and stop the threat.
And I’m not saying everyone should have the same plan. But I assert that such a scenario is legally justified.
Not to nitpick, but you might want to wait for that clear backdrop before drawing and aiming. Especially if the BG has friends.
Q”How did you get shot?”
A”I drew and was waiting for the dumbass lady behind the BG to move before I could fire!”
The above isn’t a conversation you want to have.
Curtis in IL,
Regarding a bank robbery …
Be very careful about engaging an armed bank robber: they could have an accomplice who is posing as another bank patron that is not apparently involved in the robbery … but there for “backup” in case someone engages the robber. If no one engages the armed robber, the accomplice simply evacuates the bank with everyone else after the robber fleas, there is no evidence that he/she was an accomplice, and police will never suspect (much less find) him/her. If someone does engage the armed robber, then the robber’s accomplice moves to a position where you cannot see him/her and takes you out with their concealed weapon.
You need to stop watching so much Hollywierd drivel.
There are always risks. Situational awareness will reduce but not eliminate such risks.
Neither of those officers look like they weigh 300# or could show the required amount of butt crack at all times. What has happened to professionalism? Who is the Rhodes Scholar looking dude in the middle?
The major point that I would add to the commentary:
The armed robber was waving a gun around during commission of an armed robbery: as far as I am concerned that is an imminent, credible threat of death or grievous bodily harm. While that provides a legal justification to immediately respond with deadly force, it does not require that you ever respond with deadly force as Mr. Farago correctly stated.
Unfortunately, as we saw in this case, the concealed carrier’s choice to “stay out of it” may have proved fatal for that carrier. While that concealed carrier’s decision to “leave the robber alone” was probably a good strategy in a vacuum involving only the robber and that concealed carrier, they were not in a vacuum. An outside influence (the unarmed “good Samaritan”) convinced the armed robber to start shooting people. At that point the concealed carrier was no longer acting on his terms — he was reacting to the armed robber on the armed robber’s terms.
If I am ever a victim of an armed robbery like this event, I will be looking for the best opportunity to counterattack. That might be instantly. That might be in 5 seconds. That might be in 30 seconds. It might be never. Remember, action always beats reaction. Better to have the armed robber reacting … preferably when they don’t even see your counterattack coming.
Good conversation. And I’m shocked that it is an NPR station.
I look at that perp and think investment banker, doctor or lawyer.
Not.
Actually he’s who I have in mind when I get a box of Cor-Bon JHP rounda.
http://www.lmtonline.com/news/local/crime/article/SAPD-One-dead-three-others-shot-in-fatal-10875601.php#photo-12239847
Media seems to have little interest in the background of the 2 skulls.