MyFox
 

mpvan's Blog

by mpvan from shawnee

Last Post 17 hours Ago


armed robber shot by victim at ATM
Aug 3, 2008 | 10:06 AM
Category: News
Report This Post

According to the KCStar 8/3/08, the robber was confronted by the victim AFTER the robbery, and was told to stop.  At which point the robber turned around pointed his gun at the victim and the robber was shot in the head by the victim..  Similar to Tom Cruise in collateral damage, I guess he wanted his stuff back. 

The victim had a permit, which was a moot point because according to the police part of the story, one isn't needed to carry the weapon in the car, in plain view. 

Gun control is hitting your target and a head shot is a difficult one.  But only one shot?  The problem there is that it leaves more than one story, in spite of witnesses.   5 shots minimum, save the other rounds in the clip for his buddy.  Armed robbery carries with it an inherent danger of being killed on the part of all parties plus the police. 

Confronting an armed robber AFTER he robs you, and is walking away?   Bold, in this case, a synonym for stupid.  The spectacular head shot at a fair distance, probably negated any chance of return fire.  Lucky.

 

8 Comments |  Add a Comment

Member Comments Total Comments: 8
Page 1 of 1
SUZY_Q read my blog view my photos
Aug 3, 2008 | 2:04 PM

Stupid for you perhaps.

To each his own. If the old guy wants to take the risk.. Let 'em.

Personally - I think this story is great. And I wish more robbers would have the tables turned on them.

Maybe the old guy knew what he was doing. Being a private citizen doesn't mean he didn't know how to carry, aim and shoot a fire arm.
mpvan read my blog
Aug 4, 2008 | 7:20 AM

Granted he was an excellent shot, as pointed out.

Think about it, an armed robber just robbed you at gunpoint and he's leaving. Threat over.

Now, you, knowing you're armed, go confront the guy and tell him to stop. In that split second when he turns around with his gun drawn, he could have easily shot the victim.

Me, I'm not betting my life on a split second decision.

The victim could have easily missed, or hit maybe an arm leg or whatever and been returned fire on, and then he could have been the one with a head shot.

Or, the robber could have tossed his weapon, and the victim could have then shot a now unarmed robber, and then been charged.

Initiating a confrontation after the threat has passed goes against the teachings of conceal and carry and a lot of state laws.

The story had a happy ending for victims of crime and the media. Just like the death penalty, it won't deter the criminals. They're too desperate.
gunmandanhunting read my blog
Aug 4, 2008 | 9:06 AM

You might think that confronting a robber after the fact goes against the teachings of concealed carry; but doesn't robbery go against the teachings of the law? Isn't it illegal to take something that doesn't belong to you? If this would happen more often, then maybe we would see a drop in the punks that think they're untouchable because they have a firearm and prey on defenseless people. The concealed carry law is starting to take effect and if they want a life of crime; then they should be ready to die for their actions.
jpbikerfreak read my blog view my photos
Aug 4, 2008 | 9:50 AM

Thank this man for saving the taxpayers some money and ridding the world of another piece of scum.

I have a friend who did the same thing. I get tired of hearing the gun grabbers talking about how "you'd never have time to get your gun" and "you could never really pull the trigger".

BS, and these stories prove it.
spellcheckman read my blog
Aug 4, 2008 | 9:52 AM

Disagree, gunman, Texas has had the death penalty, executes more people, and has had very liberal gun laws, in addition to conceal and carry. It doesn't and hasn't deterred the crime rate. Particularly in Houston and Dallas.

This particular case wasn't a conceal and carry issue. Other than it was noted that he had a permit.

I've researched it extensively on use of deadly force and posted the question in a blog months ago: when to shoot.

The best answers I got were from the internet and actual case law examples from cases around the nation. Yahoo or Google keyword search: use of deadly force. You'd be surprised at how many macho and bravado "law abiding" citizens have been prosecuted,fined,and jailed for misuse of deadly force just because they have a permit.

In Kansas, the topic isn't covered throroughly.
Lazyike67 read my blog view my photos
Aug 4, 2008 | 10:22 AM

Speaking as a pro Gun Control liberal I have this to say.

I give this guy a 10.0 for excellent Gun control.

That said I support banning & Grabbing the guns from thugs, punks & others like him. I bet he will find a NRA lawyer that will defend his right to bear arms.
UnderSurveillance read my blog
Aug 4, 2008 | 7:48 PM

By law you can use deadly force against a fleeing felon if you can articulate, that by the felon getting away he/she poses a significant risk of life or serious physical injury to yourself or others. The suspect in this case was armed with a gun and by pointing at his victim constitutes aggrivated assault along with the robbery he had just committed. I think it sounds pretty cut and dry and I hope he thinks twice before he tries to rob someone else.
Calco read my blog view my photos
Aug 4, 2008 | 11:38 PM

In Missouri you can have a concealed gun in you car WITHOUT a permit, you only need a permit if you wish to carrys a concealed gun.
Page 1 of 1


Write your comment below:




mpvan

married 2 kids independent thinker

Member Since: 7/1/2007


 

RSS: XMLWhat is RSS?