« Iraq: Obama’s nightmare? | Main | Violent act traumatizes kids »

August 05, 2008

‘Customer shoots gunman’

I strongly applaud The Star for its front-page report of the ATM user who successfully defended himself with a gun (8/3, Local, “Customer shoots gunman; Confrontation in Northland parking lot ends with the robber hospitalized”).

The story is important because it lets the criminal element know that their activity carries a higher risk now that concealed carry is a reality in Kansas City. More stories like that will surely result in a reduced number of attacks on innocent citizens.

Ed Geither
Overland Park

I never look forward to someone being injured, but the first thing I thought of when I read “Customer shoots gunman” was, “It’s about time!”

Every day I read stories of armed robberies and other violence, and finally a story comes along where someone was able to fight back. I wonder what this thief was thinking when he figured out he robbed the wrong person this time.

I took a concealed carry class so that if I needed to I could protect myself or my family. I felt that would be the only situation where I would pull a weapon on someone. But I’ve also never had someone demand my wallet while shoving a gun in my face.

Dave Bornsen
Grain Valley

Maybe the gunman learned a lesson. Maybe all those who prey on the law-abiding will take notice. You never know who is armed, and we are no longer going to be victims to thugs. It is time to take back our streets. The wave of violence reported in Kansas City every day has pushed passive citizens to action.

Be forewarned: Times are changing, and so are the laws. Now citizens are supported more and more by legislation to defend themselves and their property from thugs who prey on Joe Citizen.

To the man who was forced to shoot this thug: I know you will relive this moment the rest of your life. Sleep soundly. You did Kansas City and the world a service. Thanks!

Mark S. Leslie
Fort Leavenworth

Comments

Engineer

GCYL
Wasn't arguing with you, just trying to make my position clear. My feelings qre not too much different from yours. When bullets start to fly a lot of things can happen.
whispering
Google a little. Violent crime rate is higher in England and Scotland than in the US. Violent crime, not murder rate.

solomon

GC,

No fence straddling here, in my first post I said I would probably not have a problem shooting someone. My comments today have all been whether or not this man used appropriate force in the situation. With my comfort with a pistol I would have done it exactly as I just described in my last post, right or wrong.

GCYL

“I believe the man aimed, said halt and when the crook turned without dropping his gun, fired. Thats how I would have done it.” - solomon

In a blatant effort to straddle the fence: what you’ve said is very likely. Not only is it logical to approach a target with an advantage, you must always assume that when a person carries a weapon he not only knows how to use it but is willing to use it. Still, the article is vague; we have no idea of what was said, the distance traveled and so forth. We can only guess at what was going on inside the mind of the robbery victim as he pulled the trigger. For all we know he could be sitting at home right now being extremely thankful that no one died. “Heck, Martha, I was aiming at his ass and I almost hit him between the eyes!!”

GCYL

“As I have posted on other occasions, I am a strong proponent of "shall issue" CC laws.” - engineer

As I have posted on other occasions, I’m not taking CC laws away from anyone. In my opinion I don’t have anything to give them that would replace their sense of personal security while carrying a weapon. I have also posted on other occasions that other anti-gun posters have always failed to prove that the country has become less safe due to CC laws.

“But attempting to apprehend him may have been a more responsible course of action so far as one’s civic duty is concerned.” - engineer

Recently a person in K.C. killed two cyclists. He’ll comfort himself in the knowledge that he was found legally innocent. Still, the two cyclists died because of his total disregard of common curtsey and common sense.

The robbery victim’s situation could have ended much differently. Sure he got the bad guy but while going down the other gun discharges and his wife was killed. I’m fairly certain that he would be found legally innocent of his wife’s death and he’ll comfort himself with the belief that he took the more responsible course of action so far as one’s civic duty is concerned. Still, his wife died because of his total disregard of common sense.

solomon

GC,

No arguement here. I believe the man aimed, said halt and when the crook turned without dropping his gun, fired. Thats how I would have done it.

whispering_to_kc

The 1997 "disarming" of the English had no effect on their violent crime rate.

The homicide rate in the UK is 1/4 of what it is in the USA.

Some of the poorest, most backward nations on the planet are the most richly armed. This is not coincidence.

GCYL

“I'd have to disagree. People who choose to carry a gun should know how to shoot, and within 5 yards....” – solomon

I’d say we’re in agreement but we’d be bickering about “reasonable range of self protection”. The article was not clear at what range the shot was taken, still, with the assumption of the gun being in the bank parking lot (article picture) and due to CC requirements I’ll make the personal statement that the robbery victim took the head shot or he should be going back to class.

solomon

Good evening Engineer,

youor mention of civic duty brings to mind the incident i mentioned in JoCo. This guy was punching his girlfriend and I started to intercede. i was not in the bar they came out of, I was locking up where I worked next door. The security guards came out and stopped it right before i became involved. if I had tried to stop him and shot him I would have been in the wrong, even though my motives were good and civic minded.

Engineer

GYCL
As I have posted on other occasions, I am a strong proponent of "shall issue" CC laws. I the want firearm to protect my family and myself. In the case at hand I would have let the robber walk away and been glad to see him go. But attempting to apprehend him may have been a more responsible course of action so far as one’s civic duty is concerned.. I am convinced that the threat of meeting armed force deters crime. The experience in England since the population has been disarmed indicates that the fact that the general population is defenseless leads to an increase in violent crime.

solomon

"Handguns are not accurate"-Sammy

I'd have to disagree. People who choose to carry a gun should know how to shoot, and within 5 yards (a reasonable distance for true self defense), handguns in the hand of someone prepared are very accurate.

Gunfights are not like on TV. If you have to defend yourself you'll be within that 15 feet.

GCYL

“First, did he aim for the head?” – Sammy

“Either the robbery victim knew what he was doing or he was an extremely lucky, very bad aim.” - Posted by: GCYL | Aug 6, 2008 5:25:40 AM

Agree, the article was not clear and only personal assumptions can be made.

“Handguns are not accurate.” – Sammy

Agree, however, unfortunately for you the person had a CC permit. If you support CC laws you’d want society to be able to make some assumptions like demonstrated skill, abilities and judgments. We could make a very reasonable list of conditions that would justify an inadvertent head shot but would we also be in danger of moving farther away from society’s favorable assumptions towards CC? Do we hurt CC when we say he wasn’t set, he wasn’t familiar with the weapon and so on?

“As for the learning curve for robbers line of reasoning, that's a big jump in their mind to go from armed robbery to murder even with the given that criminals aren't the most rational people.” - Sammy

I think my last post addressed this. Personally I don’t have the belief that criminals have the rational, moral, ability to make good decisions. That’s why we call them criminals. I’m not even certain they have enough fear to make good decisions.

solomon

I carry a gun in my car and sometimes on me. when I stop at a gas station or store of any type i am aware of my surroundings. this is a habit I've had for over 30 years, no matter where I've lived. I once pointed a pistol at an individual who accosted me late one night as I got out of my car at home, (in a nice neighborhood), and I once prepared to pull it outside of a bar in JoCo. I am thankful neither time it came to me pulling a trigger. In the one instance it was teenage muggers, in the latter is was a drunken redneck who had a problem that was not mine.

i spent some time last month in NYC, Istanbul and the Netherlands. I did not miss my pistol at all.

GCYL

“By carrying guns, we encourage criminals to kill their victims to reduce the chance of resistance.” – Marctnts

The prevalent thought is that by carrying guns, we encourage criminals to leave us alone. If this fails, for whatever reasons and the carried weapons are now being used, are we now encouraging criminals to kill their victims to reduce the chance of resistance? Especially when they become recipients of head shots? Not by angry people but by people who know exactly what they’re doing and have mistakenly been given the chance to do it?

“The logical conclusion to this line of thought…..” – Marctnts

I’m not sure how far logic can go with crime. I would have made a logical conclusion that a part time job would be better than armed robbery at the ATM machine for the quick $40.00. I just don’t enjoy the idea that an armed robber would come to the logical conclusion that sitting on death row for decades is far better than dying on the street due to a head wound.

Sammy

"Unless you’re saying you’d have no problems trying to kill someone because they took your quick $40 from the ATM machine, I really didn’t see a different perspective." -GCYL

Sorry if I misinterpreted this sentence, which appears to subordinate the act of robbing at gun point to the value of the property stolen. Having been mugged, I can assure you my $3 financial loss didn't compare to the very real threat of mortal violence that was shoved in my face. In other words, had I retaliated, it wouldn't have been for the $3.

"That assumption only leaves one other type of person who would aim for the head." and your other statements-GYCL

Tough to say without knowing all the details. First, did he aim for the head? Handguns are not accurate. Recoil can easily put lift on a leg or arm shot. Second, did the robber have the ATM card or any other info where he might have learned the where the victim lived? Finally, did the robber make any threats like, "call the cops and I know where you live now, I'll come find you."

As for the learning curve for robbers line of reasoning, that's a big jump in their mind to go from armed robbery to murder even with the given that criminals aren't the most rational people.

whispering_to_kc

Lessons to potential victims: (1) assume everyone around you is out to rob you.

(2) Shoot first, ask questions later.

Marctnts

GYCL,

After re-reading your original post in light of your explanation, I understand what you were going for, and apologize for any confusion.

Whispering,

Let me see if I understand your point. By carrying guns, we encourage criminals to kill their victims to reduce the chance of resistance.

The logical conclusion to this line of thought is that it is better for the populace to "roll over" and allow criminals to victimize at will, so as to reduce the liklihood they will be hurt. Seems like a pay-day for those who seek to victimize others.

The inverse of your example could also be used:

Lessons to robbers:

1) Assume all your victims are armed.

(2) Decide that you may not always have the element of surprise on your victim, and if the above is true, accept the fact that an armed victim may kill you.

(3) Decide it's better to get a job than take the chance of dying.

GCYL

“The CC argument is not relevant to this particular situation. //snip// The gun, which was located in the vehicle and not on his person, is allowed to be carried in a vehicle under missouri law WITHOUT a CC.” - Marctnts

Which is why I find state gun laws so convoluted. I have a picture of the robbery victim standing up in a convertible. :D

(Ahhhhh come on, it’s ah funny mental picture!)

Either way, the robbery victim wasn’t content with being able to walk away relatively unharmed. Escalation of force, another chance at losing his life and aiming for the head were the calls made that day. It worked in the robbery victim’s favor so good for him.

whispering_to_kc

Lessons to robbers: (1) assume all your victims are armed.

(2) Shoot your victims as their backs are to you while they withdraw cash from the ATM.

(3) Remove cash from their lifeless hands.

(4) Bonus points: you can remove their concealed weapon for resale on the street to another punk for another robbery and you'll leave no witnesses behind to testify against you in court.

GCYL

Let’s review the quote shall we?

“So what’s the learning curve here? Wait for the money and then shot the robbery victim in the back of the head before you take one in the front of the head?” - me

Assumptions on the learning curve: The robbery victim gets his money out of the ATM. The ROBBER then puts a bullet in the back of the victims head so he can safely walk away without the robbery victim retrieving a weapon, call the robber, robber turns around and he takes a bullet in the FRONT of HIS head.

Wow, that pretty much sums up the actual article I read. Well other than the personal assumption that the learning curve now has a cowardly robbers killing robbery victims from behind to avoid any possible retaliation.

It seems that Marctnts didn’t read my post. Perhaps a re-read of the post would be appropriate before commenting on it again.

GCYL

“GCYL - You write as if we should all be happy to give our cash to robbers and be glad to get it over with.” – Sammy

You sound as if we should all be happy to take a bullet in the back of our heads over $40.00 and be glad to get it over with. The obvious escapes you Sammy, I sound as if we should all be happy that we to leave a robbery relatively unharmed.

“I seriously doubt the victim's intent was to shoot the robber because he was mad.” – Sammy

That assumption only leaves one other type of person who would aim for the head.

“Perhaps he wanted to hold the guy until police could arrive and serve the robber justice for committing a violent crime.” – Sammy

Did I express something differently? By doing just this we’ve still created a separate and deadlier confrontation between two armed men.

“But, when met with deadly resistance, the victim did what he had to do.” - Sammy

Aim for the head? Really? That’s something he had to do? Apparently, not being happy with walking away alive, the victim did what he had to do, not walk away at all.

 
About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright