(CO) Store owner shoots armed bandit


PDA






Drizzt
January 3, 2003, 10:20 PM
Store owner shoots armed bandit
Second robber flees Wheat Ridge heist scene

By Sean Kelly
Denver Post Staff Writer

Thursday, January 02, 2003 - A Wheat Ridge liquor store owner shot a masked robber who demanded money while leveling the barrel of a shotgun at him on Wednesday.

Two men in black ski masks burst into Lakeside Liquors, 5820 W. 44th Ave., about 4:35 p.m. and demanded money, said police Cmdr. Wade Hammond.

One of the men had a shotgun and pointed it at owner Scott Madsen, who was working the counter. Madsen activated a silent alarm, scooped money from the register and gave it to the pair.

As the robbers turned to flee, Madsen pulled a semi-automatic handgun from behind the counter and emptied the clip at the two men, firing off eight shots.

"It was happening quick," he said. "I was just trying to protect my life. I was in fear for my life."

Madsen struck one robber in the small of the back. The man tried to run, but Madsen tackled him in the parking lot and held him down until police arrived.

The man was taken to St. Anthony Central Hospital and underwent surgery Wednesday night.

The other robber also may have been shot, but he jumped into a getaway car, possibly a green Toyota sedan, and fled. Police are checking area hospitals for gunshot victims, Hammond said.

Neither man was identified, and it was unclear if the second robber escaped with any money, Hammond said.

Wednesday was Madsen's five-year anniversary of owning the liquor store. In that time, he said, he's never been robbed. But he kept the gun handy just in case.

"I never thought I'd have to use it. I'm glad I had it today," Madsen said. "It's a little protection."

Police interviewed Madsen but criminal charges are unlikely, Hammond said. It would be up to the district attorney to file any charges, he said.

"We've had incidents like this in the past, and the store owners have not been charged with anything," Hammond said.

Madsen said he hopes criminals will think twice before robbing someone else. "I would hope so," he said. "I hope it's a lesson."

But after staring down a shotgun pointed at him, he said, he was just happy to be home with his family for dinner.

"I'm doing all right. I had New Year's dinner and thanked the Lord that I'm alive," he said. "And my kids are thankful, too."

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E53%257E1084870%257E,00.html

If you enjoyed reading about "(CO) Store owner shoots armed bandit" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ninenot
January 3, 2003, 10:59 PM
First impression: the store owner is a liar.

How the blazes could he be "in fear of his life" when the perps are running out the DOOR???

It doesn't look too good when he shot them in the back.

Sorry to say it but this bozo should be put on trial.:mad:

.45FMJoe
January 3, 2003, 11:16 PM
f them. It's unfortunate he wasn't a better shot. I do not see why he should be placed on trial. I believe that they deserved what they got. Had they not broken the law and placed another's life in danger intentionally and wrecklessly, they would not have been shot. I still don't see why you would say the store owner deserves to go on trial? Are you saying it's ok for someone to commit an armed robbery and not fear retribution? I guess I just believe in the eye for an eye mentality.

Standing Wolf
January 4, 2003, 12:23 AM
I might personally believe in the traditional eye for an eye philosophy; the law, however, frequently precludes shooting armed robbers unless they're actually threatening one's life. Shooting armed robbers on their way in is legal; shooting them on their way out usually isn't.

Frankly, I doubt it even makes sense to refer to "the law" any more, since law varies so widely from state to state, county to county, and city to town to village.

If the shop keeper actually shot this armed robber as he was fleeing, he probably violated Colorado law. If I were the district attorney, I'd prosecute the armed robber to the fullest extent of the law, and issue the shop keeper a $10 fine for disturbing the peace or something.

PATH
January 4, 2003, 12:58 AM
They came in to rob the store and I defended myself. I have nothing else to say until my attorney is present!

matis
January 4, 2003, 01:36 AM
According to (unconstitutional) law the shopkeeper cannot shoot the hold-up men leaving his store. But why such vehemence in condemning him?

Such laws are immoral and do not protect life. If hold-up men knew that they risked being shot going in or going out, we'd have far fewer hold-ups, and as a result fewer lives at risk and lost. Why cannot someone protect his property as well as his life? We used to shoot/hang cattle-rustlers and horse-thieves! I think we were smarter then than we are now.

Why is the life of a perp who preys on his fellow man worth more than the shop-keepers right to run his business and to make a living?

Matis

Edward429451
January 4, 2003, 01:58 AM
Unless they've changed the law when I wasn't paying attention; Colorado has what they call the "Make my Day Law" in which citizens can use deadly force in defense of property.

So he shot them in the back. So what. Maybe he'd be called a good man for not taking the shot. I'm hard pressed to not call him a good man for taking the shot though. Good for him. They just stuck a shotgun in his face and took his families livlihood.

Maybe the threat was not past after all (for the community) when he took the shot. If he would've held the shot cause their back was to him, they would've got away with it and continued to rob in the community eventually hurting someone or worse. So he did the community a favor. I suspect no re-offender this time!

We used to shoot/hang cattle-rustlers and horse-thieves!

Hows that go again? "Men were not hung for stealing horses, but that horses be not stolen."

One for the good guys.:cool:

Coltdriver
January 4, 2003, 12:23 PM
So in your world there are rules under which a thief can come into your business, threaten your life with deadly force, steal your money and you think it is proper that you are to be prosecuted for defending yourself?

You want to see these thiefs live a safe and happy life in which they can know that when they break the law that you are going to be punished for defending yourself just in case you don't follow the "rules" of properly respecting vermin life?

You think a life threatening situation is so neat and orderly and you would be so calm and under control that you would contemplate the proper legal defense before you took action to defend your life?

The only thing that is indefensable is your supposition!

Beren
January 5, 2003, 01:10 PM
I may not have taken the shot as the men were living, but I don't condemn the store owner for doing so himself. In fact, I hope he suffers no civil or criminal penalties for his actions, which, on a moral level, were fully justified.

Not because property was stolen, in my mind, but because the robbers threatened lethal force in order to steal the property. Had they just grabbed a bottle of wine and ran for the door, I wouldn't have seen it as a justified shooting.

But, that's my moral code.

Edward429451
January 5, 2003, 04:45 PM
Yup. No shotgun vs shotgun in the face is sure to sway a mans decision making process.:scrutiny: :D

P95Carry
January 5, 2003, 05:00 PM
I support the guy 100% ...... altho I know there are places where shooting at a departing perp is looked on as bad news.

However .. let us look at possible events ... the perp may have turned and shot just prior to leaving ...... or, he may have been hindered in exit by an incoming customer .. two very possible chances for someone being taken out.

IMO the htreat was still there ... and the guy has already faced having his head blown off. I wish him well and no come backs.

Oh and .. one other thing I would say .. and feel strongly about .... perps should totally lose any rights for civil actions after a crime like this .. none of this crazy suing by them or their families, because they were ''hurt'' ....... they relinquish normal rights when the felony is committed ... that's how I think it should be.

Gordon
January 5, 2003, 10:44 PM
What kinda jackass thinking is not shooting at a fleeing felon who just pointed a shotgun in your facewhen he is still inside your business? Only rational reason Not to is if there was danger to others. 'Oh lucky you guys just threatened to kill me and now you are running away and I must watch you leave with my money. Come back tommorrow I'll have more money and police can tape scene again. Oh its just a misguided youth who was shot' ect. ect. ad nauseum . Go vote democrat again please and don't wait for text book " you can shoot me now because I'm gonna pull a gun" and then you can use those .13 second splits -dream on. Anything that hurts bad guys discourages crime like the cop said.Only thing store owner did wrong was not having a shot gun with rifle sights IMHO.:fire:

Blackhawk
January 5, 2003, 11:30 PM
Good for the Madsen! :D

Covey Rise
January 6, 2003, 01:51 AM
The DA is one of the few smart ones who knows that other criminals will read about this, and it will make them think twice against armed robbery, since the criminal now knows he is open game, and the property owner is legally safe.

Carlos Cabeza
January 6, 2003, 12:20 PM
That's it !!! Whenever a goblin decides to commit a crime all he needs to do is walk in backwards and use a mirror to look over his shoulder. I'm sure with practice he could become proficient shooting over his shoulder as well. That way any defensive exchange of fire could be used in civil court.....................BAAAAAAAAAAAA !!!!!!!

If you enjoyed reading about "(CO) Store owner shoots armed bandit" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!