Previous Post
Next Post

Three hold-up men who were robbing a Shreveport vape store earlier this week lost track of who was in the business when they pulled their guns. In the image above, you can see two men on the left slip out the door as the thieves busied themselves with the clerk behind the counter on the right.

Here’s the video the Shreveport PD have released (you may have to view it at Facebook) . . .

Those two customers didn’t just leave the scene, though. They went back to their vehicle, retrieved a couple of guns — one of them an AR — and then engaged the three stick-up men as they left the building.

Courtesy Shreveport Police Department and KSLA

The Shreveport Police Department reports . . .

As the robbery suspects exited the business the customers engaged them, and an apparent exchange of gunfire took place between at least one of the patrons and the robbery suspects. Two of the robbery suspects were struck by gunfire and ultimately succumbed to their injuries. The third robbery suspect escaped on foot and has not been identified at this time. He is described as a black male wearing gray shorts and a black hoodie and stands approximately 5’6” to 5’8” tall with a slender build.
In the immortal words of Meatloaf, two outta three ain’t bad. The SPD is apparently looking for not only the escaped thief, but the two good Samaratans as well. Let’s hope they avoided injury in stopping an armed robbery.


Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Usual suspects. 2 out of 3 ain’t bad. Tax $$$ Saved. The armed citizens who took out the perps, should be given medals, free ammo and unlimited range time. Along with the thanks of a grateful community.

    • The citizens were fortunate they saw the threat and were able to get to their weapons at a vape store.

      Usually a Long way from the front door of Walmart or Winn Dixie.

      I recommend having a gun on your person.

      These guys were fortunate. (Not the perps).

      • I totally agree. Criminals and crazies don’t give you time to arm up or reload, so always be ready. Even if I’m just taking out the garbage, I am armed.

      • many marijuana dispensaries have no guns, or knives allowed in store posted on their front door,so you cant be legally armed until you leave the store in Florida law.

        • “many marijuana dispensaries have no guns, or knives allowed in store posted on their front door…”

          As such, I would argue the parking in front of the store is curtilage of the store, thus included in the weapon exclusion zone. Thus, the customers were illegally armed.

  2. Wanna stop “Gun Violence”?
    Give QUALIFIED IMMUNITY to Samaritans who stand up to crime!
    That’l remove a lot of dangerous and repeating threats, and save a lot on expensive court cases. “Gun Violence” robberies may start to wane…
    Come on, legislators, get with it!

  3. The customers left the store, and were no longer under threat of death, or grievous bodily harm. Arming themselves, and attacking the perps, the customers became vigilantes (the store clerk was also no longer under threat). The armed customers were no longer defending themselves, or anyone else. “Stand Your Ground”, “Castle Doctrine”, even “Self-defense” do not apply.

    If the vigilantes are prosecuted, it might send a message to the legal gun owners who think they are special deputies of the law.

    As an iconoclast, and 2A absolutist, I cannot endorse, or recommend actions as reported in the article.

    • I’ve gotta agree. If they were in the store and responded to the armed robbery in progress, they could legit claim they were addressing a threat to themselves and the clerks. Even if they left and came back to stop the robbery while it was still in progress it would be justifiable. But engaging the perps in their getaway is different. They almost had it right.

      • didju SEE the video of what the perps did as they fled the store? No? Then HOW do you know the perps were not drawing down on the armed citizen bystnders? Those clowns wer armed. WHO opened fire first, once outside? Until you KNOW that, keep quiet. And I doubt you KNOW that.

        You’d rather such dangerous thieves walk? How do you know thay won’t get the loot next heist, then “neutralise” all the witnesses? These two dead perps will never be able to do tat now. Justice WAS served. Don’t like it? Pay for enough cops to stand as armed guards everywhere.

        • Once the customers left the store, they were no longer in danger. The had time to retrieve weapons, unimpeded. They could have called 911 during that time, and removed themselves further from the scene. The customers were not in imminent danger.

          The situation is really not different from pursuing outside, a robber in your house. Once the perp turns and flees your dwelling, the threat to you ends (in many states). Chasing the perp into the street, while shooting at them is no longer self-defense.

          Returning to the store, “in defense of others” might have justified the customers shooting inside the store (after determining if the clerk was in imminent danger).

          The perps were not chasing after the two customers who left the store, thus not putting them in imminent danger.

        • “The perps were not chasing after the two customers who left the store, thus not putting them in imminent danger.”

          I would like to think the two that exited the store to ‘tool up’ did society ‘a solid’ by ensuring 2 of them would never threaten anyone else again. 🙂

          In other words, “Always look at the bright side of life”.

          *Snicker* 😉

        • The perps had the choice of surrendering or shooting it out with the responders.

          They chose poorly.

        • “The armed getaway is part of the armed robbery process. Forcible felony…”

          The customers seem to not be LEO, thus no authority to enforce violations of felony law.

        • Bullshit, at least in FL, and hopefully LA. LA is, iirc, also an SYG state.

          Not saying it’s wise, or w/o risk, but presumably – armed offenders were advancing, defenders stationary. Also, the idea that the forcible felony ends when the money is handed over is completely bogus.

        • “Bullshit, at least in FL, and hopefully LA. LA is, iirc, also an SYG state.”

          *Where* in Florida would matter, even though it shouldn’t.

          Do that in Miami or Lauderdale or Palm Beach, you will likely have a problem with a Leftist D.A.

          Where I live in Polk county, I’d probably get an ‘Attaboy’.

          In all truthfulness, I hope I never have to find out… 🙁

        • @geoff

          Maybe. Probably not, given the apparent facts. That is an opinion.

          I betcha – they dropped the money. The one that got away was not armed (or dropped it).

    • Sam,
      You are not a 2nd Amendment absolutist.

      If you were, you would understand the phrase “being necessary to the security of a free State”.
      The peace of our society is the responsibility of everyone, not just the military and the police. All men of goodwill must do what they reasonably can to stop wicked and violent men from harming others. These men were likely operating in that manner, and not as vigilantes.

      Apart from more specific information, it is wrong for you to call them “vigilantes”, rather than “keepers of the peace” applying the Common Law principal of Posse Comitatus.

      You probably wouldn’t be complaining if the police had shot the armed robbers. That reveals a “statist” bias in your mindset. We have been indoctrinated Sam, and our forefathers wouldn’t have made the argument you made.

      • “You are not a 2nd Amendment absolutist. ”

        You couldn’t be more wrong. Zero infringements on RTKBA are permitted. That is absolutism. The rest of your comment has nothing to do with the Second Amendment.

        Not a word in the Second Amendment implies, or directs, that a person is bound to act in a certain manner. Regards the word “militia”, the rules of the militia group determines what the militia is commanded, or prohibited, to do. Being part of “militia” does not delegate police power to the members, unless the rules of the militia state such.

        The Second Amendment states that the purpose of militia is to preserve the security of a state, not enforcing local law.

        Nothing in the Constitution, anywhere, obligates me to defend you, or anyone else, regardless of the peril you may be facing.

        Without delegated police power, an individual must follow existing law regarding what actions a gun owner may conduct. Acting without legal authority (within the law), makes one a vigilante, not a “concerned citizen”.

        • Bullshit. At least in the absence of a duty to retreat.

          If you are robbing a store. a citizen can obstruct your line of retreat. Doing so in no way dilutes that citizen’s right to self-defense.

        • Incorrect Sam,
          You are absolute about the “shall not be infringed”, and that is good. I commend you there.

          The problem is that you fail to grasp the “being necessary to the security of a free State” part. Yes, the 2nd Amendment does say that.

          The US Constitution does not exist is a vacuum. it has it’s roots in English Common Law, and Common Law has it’s roots in the Moral Law of the Creator of Heaven and Earth, the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ.

          He is the Source of all Law, and He does require us to seek the good of all men, and the peace of the innocent.

    • This, along with stuff like the 7-11 perp getting caned, is going to become more and more prevalent as more and more people become fed up with the Soros backed DAs turning perps JUST LIKE THESE THREE STOOGES loose on the street before the cops have the report finalized.

      Just making a prediction, not commenting on the legality (or not,) of said actions..

      • “The Second Amendment states that the purpose of militia is to preserve the security of a state, not enforcing local law.”
        The very purpose of the militia as stated, “preserve the security” implies Action. The actions of good citizens can and does contribute to the preservation of security.
        See Gadsden’s post relative to citizen’s arrest.

    • The only real difference between an LEO and a citizen is that the LEO has the authority to make a warrantless misdemeanor arrest. Any citizen can make a felony arrest and use deadly force to accomplish it. That citizen just better know WTF they’re doing.

    • Sam, I Have a RED HOTD NEWS FLASH for you. If a civilian sees a FELONY being committed, he can LEGALLY (doesn’t have to) take action against the perpetrator(s).

    • Obviously, laws need to be changed to allow for the citizenry to engage criminals wherever they are perpetrating crime. I hope the police are “unable” to track the Samaritans down. They did the right thing, and probably saved the lives of people in the future, though we’ll never know. The criminal records of dead perpetrators should be publicized as well. That would focus the community on how repeat offenders are treated, and would help stop the martyrdom of “George Floyd” criminals.

  4. Well, this is the result of the libertarians liberals and the left, saying there are too many criminals being locked up in America.
    Because they said it is okay to steal private property. Because they tell the property owners.

    “That’s why they have insurance.”

    The 3 L’s do not believe in the concept of private property rights.
    They believe the government should have a monopoly on violence. They are comfortable with the government killing to protect government property.

  5. if it aint your money or your people, better stay out of it if you can. They’ll lock you up for interfering and it’ll cost you a fortune to stay out of prison and ‘un-sued”.

  6. An ‘Asylum Seeking’ peaceful immigrant named Mohamad Barakat opened fire on police in Fargo, North Dakota (of all places, “you betcha!”) killing one of them, before being taken down himself.

    The gun the ‘Asylum Seeker’ used? A full-auto AK-47… :

    • Disclaimer: I am not trying to be a snide Monday-morning quarterback here nor critical of the officer who ultimately engaged and neutralized the attacker. Rather, there is a huge lesson to learn here. Read on.

      I friend of mine is a retired deputy who became a trainer and trained countless local city and county law enforcement officers. One day he invited me over to his rural property for some “dynamic” target practice. I set up sticks with cross members and T-shirts to represent a mix of attackers and bystanders and began practicing moving and shooting (and NOT shooting the pretend bystanders). My friend watched me practice on the targets and then offered some outstanding advice: move RAPIDLY toward your attacker if at all possible. Up to that point, I was moving sideways and often times even backward, but never forward. The next few cycles I practiced moving sideways as well as advancing on my pretend stick attackers.

      After practicing a few more times and stopping for a break, he explained why it is important to advance on your attacker if you can. Quite simply: it is somewhat difficult to land bullets on target while you are moving around and your odds of landing bullets on target increase rapidly as you reduce the distance between yourself and your attacker.

      I mention this because the officer in the video appeared to have an easy opportunity very early on to advance on the downed (although still moving and dangerous) attacker. And I mean advance to within eight feet which all-but-guarantees ability to put shots on the attacker’s central nervous system and IMMEDIATELY stop the threat. Instead, the officer kept moving forward and backward, never really getting close enough to ensure an easy central nervous system shot. Sure, the officer used the car for concealment/cover. However, that concealment/cover was also protecting the attacker and the officer was no longer able to see what the attacker was doing.

      • Advancing *towards* full-auto fire is something I pray I never have to contemplate doing. That cop did far better than I would have.

        Just hearing that distinctive ‘chatter’ of the AK had to have his heart in his throat…

        • Geoff PR,

          Clarification: in this particular case I am suggesting that the officer advance on the attacker after the attacker was writhing around on the ground–not while the attacker was shooting full auto at everyone.

        • Even with armor it sucks and you tend to pray the person spraying is too retarded to use sights or anchor the stock under the arm.

      • The jihadi opened fire without warning from concealment. I guess Fargo could be said to be “lucky” this tragedy was not much worse. Like Maui scale worse.

        Would have been nice if he had been red flagged during the citizenship process – as opposed to red flagging people who think followers of the “religion of peace” have a tendency to be dangerous.


    • Good grief. Why why WHY WHY WHY do cops still use 9mm plinker totally ineffective ammunition? What do the muh shot placement, muh modern powders and bullets wienies have to say about this? Another video of cops plugging a perp with scores of 9mm and the guy is still rolling around on the pavement. If the cop missed every shot, he needs to be fired. Two or three .357 or .44 magnum fired with precision using the single action trigger from behind the engine block of that car and the jihadi would have been a slab of meat on the sidewalk. Even 10mm would help.

      If cops can’t handle anything more than 9mm recoil they shouldn’t be cops. What a joke.

      • “WHY do cops still use 9mm plinker totally ineffective ammunition?”

        Because a 105mm howitzer won’t fit in the officer’s holster?

      • It is safe to say that 9mm has put more men in the ground than any other handgun cartridge. All hand guns are weak and no firearm is a death ray. Most people who get shot with a hand gun of any sort simply run away. I have personally seen a man take two shots to the chest from a 12ga loaded with buckshot live long enough to shot and kill 2 other people. A car is concealment and not cover. Cover is a pile of rocks or a hole in the ground.

        • 7.62 Tok or 9 Mak in the communist purges may have eclipsed 9 Luger, given some 100+ million dead.

    • IMO I would have never said “put the gun down!” like six or ten times after watching my buddies drop….it would have been three at best and then mag dumps till post mortem nerve twitching starts in on the targets rapidly cooling body

  7. Gotta say, they definitely found out.

    I think that the store guy should have been a bit more aware, 3 dudes in hoodies or hats in a hot as crap place like Lousiana kinda makes me nervous. Just seems like a great way to try and keep one’s face off video cameras.

    Last dude probably needed new shorts after his buddies got iced. Hope the samaritans come out of it okay, not sure how the prosecutors or the laws there will treat them in defense of property.

    • “…not sure…”

      That’s my take also. If the perps were threatening the heroes out in the parking lot, then game on boys, but if they weren’t, then the heroes may have a problem. I didn’t watch the video, because I don’t open Fleecebook stuff. I think they’re heroes regardless of the legal outcome, and I hope the legal goes their way. Don’t touch that dial!

    • “…not sure how the prosecutors or the laws there will treat them in defense of property.”

      Shreveport, Louisianan?

      If they do get charged, that’s a damn shame. 🙁

      “No trial, just one report to file” is the way things oughtta be…

  8. citizens arrest is a thing, can/has that been used as defense against claims “you could have just left the incident”?

    • “citizens arrest is a thing, can/has that been used as defense against claims “you could have just left the incident”?”

      Interesting (though we don’t have an indication that the citizens announced the intent to arrest).

      Do you perhaps have a reference to such an arrest being carried out (or attempted) at the scene of an armed robbery attempt?

      • No, that’s why I wondered aloud. Citizens arrest seems to be shrouded in mystery. Almost never talked about. But if it’s a thing, what’s to stop someone from trying to make an arrest, and using force when it goes south?

        • “…what’s to stop someone from trying to make an arrest, and using force when it goes south?”

          At the particular moment, nothing.

          The following charge of murder/attempted murder (etc.) could result in negative entertainment.

      • You don’t have any evidence otherwise, yet you already judged these men as “vigilantes” rather than “peacekeepers”.

        Then again, I don’t think you understand or truly believe the phrase “necessary to the security of a free State”

  9. You don’t have any evidence otherwise, yet you already judged these men as “vigilantes” rather than “peacekeepers”.

    Then again, I don’t think you understand or truly believe the phrase “necessary to the security of a free State”.

    • “You don’t have any evidence otherwise, yet you already judged these men as “vigilantes” rather than “peacekeepers”.”

      All the evidence needed is the fact that the customers took themselves out of harms way, then re-engaged when not under direct threat of attack by deadly force. Which states have laws that permit people not under imminent threat of attack by deadly force, to use deadly force in return?

      “free State” does not imply safe, or orderly, but rather lacking government subjugation.

      • Sam again, a civilian witnessing a felony can (doesn’t have to) take action, legally and will not face prosecution unless he used excessive force.

      • “All the evidence needed is the fact that the customers took themselves out of harms way, then re-engaged when not under direct threat of attack by deadly force.”

        This is not true. It could be that they retrieved their lawfully owned firearms and were racing back to assist the store keeper who was at great risk of bodily harm. Maybe the 3 felonious citizens exited the store and saw the 2 citizens advancing with their firearms and, being in their way of a successful escape from the crime scene, threatened the 2 with their weapons? We don’t know what transpired outside the store. I will grant you that if the 2 ambushed the 3 without attempting to perform a citizens arrest then yes, they are in trouble.

  10. Shreveport/Bossier needs some cleaning up. In years gone by, the per capita murder rate there has rivaled, and even exceeded Chitcago’s murder rate. No one notices though, because this is a relatively small metro area, so the numbers don’t go as high as Chitcago.

    Shreveport is within reasonable driving distance for me, and sometimes, they advertise bargains that I’d like to get. But, I won’t drive there unless it’s some kind of near-emergency.

  11. @Coinkadinkadoo
    “Bullshit. At least in the absence of a duty to retreat. If you are robbing a store. a citizen can obstruct your line of retreat. Doing so in no way dilutes that citizen’s right to self-defense.”

    Case law seems pretty clear: Unless on is directly, and imminently threatened with deadly force, deadly force in returned cannot be used in self-defense. “Duty to retreat” applies to the person under attack, prior to using deadly force in defense. The customers left the store, and were not facing a deadly force attack. However, if the perps had tried to attack the customers in their trucks, “duty to retreat” might have applied.

    Moral outrage is never a defense for initiating deadly force. In short, local laws apply, not personal opinions. Returning to an armed robbery in progress, after having left the scene and being out of danger, is an aggressive action. A “dammit it to hell, I’m gonna do what’s right” will not be accepted as a defense in court.

    • You are full of crap.

      And I ain’t talking morals, I am talking about a state with adequate self defense laws..Now please go suck energy off someone else.

    • SAM, WRONG. If a civilian sees a felony committed in his presence he/she can take the appropriate action including the use of deadly physical force to stop the crime and the criminals.

  12. Was there once. The guy that owned that gas station was the scariest, weirdest dude I ever met. l was afraid to take my change, thought l might catch something.

    l then got thoroughly lost, hippy hair and all, trying to get back to the road to Pensacola. Two or three am, somewhat before Easy Rider came out. Lonely little gas stations, lights ablazing, people who obviously had no need to sleep, working on cars, socializing…

    Nicest, sober-est folks I ever met. Bar none. And gave great directions.

  13. Hrrm, Lousiana law. Their odds are pretty good IMO.

    §19. Use of force or violence in defense

    A.(1) The use of force or violence upon the person of another is justifiable under either of the following circumstances:

    (a) When committed for the purpose of preventing a forcible offense against the person or a forcible offense or trespass against property in a person’s lawful possession, provided that the force or violence used must be reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent such offense.

    (b)(i) When committed by a person lawfully inside a dwelling, a place of business, or a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40) when the conflict began, against a person who is attempting to make an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, or who has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, and the person using the force or violence reasonably believes that the use of force or violence is necessary to prevent the entry or to compel the intruder to leave the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle.

    (ii) The provisions of this Paragraph shall not apply when the person using the force or violence is engaged, at the time of the use of force or violence in the acquisition of, the distribution of, or possession of, with intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance in violation of the provisions of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law.

    (2) The provisions of Paragraph (1) of this Section shall not apply where the force or violence results in a homicide.

    B. For the purposes of this Section, there shall be a presumption that a person lawfully inside a dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle held a reasonable belief that the use of force or violence was necessary to prevent unlawful entry thereto, or to compel an unlawful intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle, if both of the following occur:

    (1) The person against whom the force or violence was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle.

    (2) The person who used force or violence knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred.

    C. A person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and who is in a place where he or she has a right to be shall have no duty to retreat before using force or violence as provided for in this Section and may stand his or her ground and meet force with force.

    D. No finder of fact shall be permitted to consider the possibility of retreat as a factor in determining whether or not the person who used force or violence in defense of his person or property had a reasonable belief that force or violence was reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent a forcible offense or to prevent the unlawful entry.

    Acts 2006, No. 141, §1; Acts 2014, No. 163, §1.

  14. @Zups
    The Second Amendment is about fending off tyrannical government. Common law is a whole ‘nuther thing. Parts of “common law” are included in the text of the Constitution, but the Constitution does not codify “common law” in it’s entirety. Nor does the Constitution list the elements of “common law” that are incorporated.

    Extrapolating “security of a free state” to mean law enforcement is stretching things way too far. The founders’ writing does not reflect law enforcement as an element of the Second Amendment.

    Then, of course, the courts do not have a record of considering “common law enforcement” germane regarding whether a person is acting inside existing law (Second Amendment), or not. The best a person can expect, when violating state law is “vigalante”, worse is “criminal”. Given the information so far, the customers were acting outside the law.

  15. Depending on the police dept and DA these guys will either be heroes or they will be martyred in the name of social justice.

  16. I always encourage head shots, and groin shots for rapid effect. That haji may have been heavily drugged up to not stop until he was shot 21 times. What were they using? BB guns??? I rely on .45s, and .38Supers.

  17. We may find the two customers were armed felons that were also breaking the law at the vape shop. If so, they could be facing must longer prison terms for murder, than the lone suspect for robbery.

  18. the customers left the store in fear of the robbers, and armed themselves for their own protection. The 3 robbers came out of the store behind the customers and they were armed with illegal intent. The departed customers felt threat from the 3 armed robbers coming up behind them, and were forced to take defensive action in fear for their lives. Does that make it better for the whiners?


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here