Mc Chicken - Worker who shot at robber suspended


PDA






sheepdip
January 1, 2006, 01:28 AM
A McDonald's worker who shot at a woman who robbed the restaurant on State Street in New Albany on Christmas Eve has been suspended from his job because of the incident.
Maintenance worker Clifton Brown Jr. had taken a 9 mm pistol to work on Dec. 23 and had it with him outside the restaurant as he and another employee took out the trash shortly after the midnight closing, New Albany police said.

That is when a woman, who was on foot, put a gun to the back of the second worker and then robbed the restaurant through the drive-through window.
Brown pulled his gun out and ordered the fleeing robber to stop, he told police.
The woman stopped but raised her own gun, Brown told police. He responded by firing two shots at her before she continued to flee. Police, who described Brown as in his early 50s, said they think both shots missed their target.
Ron Vanover, owner of the restaurant, said yesterday that guns are prohibited at McDonald's. Vanover said Brown is suspended "pending an investigation."
Calling it a personnel matter, he would not say what might happen at the end of the investigation.
"It's just unfortunate that it happened and it's unfortunate that somebody reacted that way," Vanover said of the robbery and the firing of shots. He called Brown's reaction inappropriate.
"I think that's common sense. Money can be replaced; lives cannot," Vanover said.
Brown, who could not be reached yesterday, has a permit to carry a gun, New Albany Detective Keith Whitlow said. "We don't have any reason to believe that Mr. Brown has violated any laws," Whitlow said. "It's up to McDonald's to decide" what happens with the employee, he added.
Whitlow said that he's "not overly enthused about untrained individuals engaging in stuff like that," but that once the robber raised her gun, Brown "was in jeopardy" and had a right to defend himself.

If you enjoyed reading about "Mc Chicken - Worker who shot at robber suspended" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
robert garner
January 1, 2006, 05:59 AM
since the fired one of their emplyees several yrs ago just for this.
Wrote Corporate and told them why and that my son would just hafta get used to Wendys! Their response was It wasnt their call it was handled locally.
Bet if "locally" changed the secret sauce there woulda been ---- to pay .

HighVelocity
January 1, 2006, 07:12 AM
The food they sell is more dangerous than a 9mm. :barf:

jwhisler
January 1, 2006, 08:16 AM
"Whitlow said that he's 'not overly enthused about untrained individuals engaging in stuff like that' "


how is he sure this individual was completely untrained?

shermacman
January 1, 2006, 09:03 AM
Let's review:
We have a gainfully employed man, in his 50's, with a CCW. Among his responsibilities is to take the trash out, at midnight, in a dark parking lot. He has the foresight to protect himself from the inevitable robbery that McDonald's and the franchise owner should have seen coming. His boss "suspends" him for exhibiting common sense. The police "dis" him for being both smart and brave.

Anyone got fun stuff like email addresses and phone numbers for the boss or the cop?

joab
January 1, 2006, 09:33 AM
"Whitlow said that he's 'not overly enthused about untrained individuals engaging in stuff like that' "I have to believe that things like this are said to prevent couch potato Rambos from playing vigilante and creating situations like the failed gas station robbery attempt in WW and the Dixie Dance Kings.
Secretly they're saying "good Job" and may even tell the guy that in private.
At least it makes me feel better to think this way.

McDonalds has every right to fire the guy for knowingly violating company policy.
I would like to see some kind of policy somewhere that allows for certified people to carry at the workplace, but other than public buildings I have never seen it addressed except for a total ban.

oldschool
January 1, 2006, 09:50 AM
sheepdip, was this New Albany Indiana?

HI express
January 1, 2006, 11:35 AM
How easily they forget that in southern California some massacres have happened at their restaurants where not only the employees but customers were shot and killed by people who chose their place to wantonly massacre people.

Imagine if they had a CCW person decide to defend themselves when the shooting began?:cuss:

TrapdoorBilly
January 1, 2006, 11:47 AM
Anyone got fun stuff like email addresses and phone numbers for the boss or the cop?

No comment on the cop thing, but your gripe is not with the boss but with corporate. It's a corporate policy, no firearms, the workers boss has no choice in the matter.

An interesting fact that someone else brought up is that the food they sell is more dangerous than a handgun and overall has probably killed just as many if not more people than the unlawful use of handguns.

denfoote
January 1, 2006, 11:53 AM
Time for a boycott!!

If every gun owner stopped going to Micky D's, I bet the policy would change real fast!

I, for one, am willing to give it a go!!

GRB
January 1, 2006, 11:55 AM
I know that MacDonald's has a right to fire this guy if he broke company policy and it is a firing offense. I agree with that whole heartidly. What I doi not agree with is the sentiment expressed by MacDonald's by having an anti-firearms policy in the first place. MacDonald's and other fast food restaurants are prime targets for hooligan type thieves who are trying to get fast cash to feed a drug habit. Their employees should be able to properly defend themselves in such situations. It is unfortunate that MacDonal's thinks like this from their corporate headquarters all the way down to their local store management; it is unfortunate that anyone from macDonald's management would make as sad a commentary as the following: "It's just unfortunate that it happened and it's unfortunate that somebody reacted that way," Vanover said of the robbery and the firing of shots. He called Brown's reaction inappropriate. Can you believe that this store manager, this poor misinformed soul, did not think to say that it was unfortunate that a robber targetted his employees placing their live in jeopardy (or if he did then it is unfortunate that the media did not print that part). Can you believe that instead of being proud that an employee would lay his life on the line, he only believes that to be unfortunate! Can you believe he thinks the actions of a law abiding citizen, who was attempting to protect property and life, took inappropriate action! The only person who took truly inappropriate action during the robbery was the robber. Sure the employee should have followed the rules and not had the gun, but he had it and his response to the robbery was not inappropriate in any way nor was it unfortunate. Shame on MacDonald's - there goes that Big Mac right down the drain for me. It will not be the easiest thing to do (nor the hardest), I'll just have to really try to remember, that if this guy gets fired, I will do my best to boycott MacDonald's. As for right now, an email or letter will be sent in to MacDonald's Corporate HQ to inform them that I do not believe they should be firing this guy, they should be giving him a promotion. Maybe some of you will do likewise.

SHEEPDIP,
PLEASE POST THE LINK TO THE ARTICLE, SO THAT I CAN GET SOME MORE INFO AS TO EXACTLY WHERE AND WHEN THIS TOOK PLACE. THANKS.

Happy New Year,
Glenn B

telomerase
January 1, 2006, 12:26 PM
MacDonald's has every right to fire employees for defending themselves. They have every right to encourage crime by helping armed robbers succeed in their careers.

We, on the other hand, have every right to maintain our cardiac health and avoid prions, and this incident should encourage us to do so even at the loss of some 'convenience' (heart attacks aren't really that convenient anyway...)

Lupinus
January 1, 2006, 01:05 PM
They have every right to set their policy, I have every right to call foul and call them a bunch of idiots.

Give everyone you hire a gun and train them to use it, publicize it. Bet you won't have your stores robbed anymore.

The Goose
January 1, 2006, 01:13 PM
[QUOTE=That is when a woman, who was on foot, put a gun to the back of the second worker and then robbed the restaurant through the drive-through window.
Brown pulled his gun out and ordered the fleeing robber to stop, he told police.
The woman stopped but raised her own gun, Brown told police. He responded by firing two shots at her before she continued to flee. Police, who described Brown as in his early 50s, said they think both shots missed their target.
cannot," Vanover said.[/QUOTE]

You guys might not like my thoughts on this, but here goes. Where does this guy Brown get off pulling out his gun on a fleeing individual and ordering them to stop? Concealed carry is for personal defense and if the woman was fleeing how was Brown in immediate danger at that point. This is very dangerous ground. It is also believed that the two fired rounds mised their intended target, Where did those rounds go? There may be a lot more to this story, but we are all responding to the information given here.

I have a real issue with this type of action. If the facts are straight then I believe that Brown should be fired and possibly prosecuted, not for carrying a concealed weapon, but for potentially recklessly endangering any bystanders.

We are not police officers and it is not our job to attempt to stop fleeing bad guys (or girls). Sure he had a right to respond when the woman raised her gun, but she was responding to his actions, which if the story is accurate, amount to escalating the situation.

My initial knee jerk reaction was to be down on McDonalds, but after a little thought I changed my mind. I am still opposed to their position on concealed carry, but I am equally opposed to private citizens acting like police officers.

TallPine
January 1, 2006, 01:28 PM
Goose: the facts are unclear to me ... did he order the woman robber to "stop" (fleeing after the robbery) or to "stop" (pointing a gun at someone's head) :confused:

Personally, they can have my employers' money - but pointing a gun at somebody to rob them is deadly force which can be legally met with deadly force.

Declaration Day
January 1, 2006, 01:41 PM
I'd say that I will boycott McDonald's over this story, but I wised up and stopped eating that garbage 15 years ago.

rallyhound
January 1, 2006, 01:46 PM
It sure would be easier to debate these types of incidents if we could count on the press to accuratejy report these types of stories.
Is getting fired from Mcdonalds really something to get upset about?
He can probably get a security job now for twice the pay.

Manedwolf
January 1, 2006, 01:56 PM
"It's just unfortunate that it happened and it's unfortunate that somebody reacted that way," Vanover said of the robbery and the firing of shots. He called Brown's reaction inappropriate.
"I think that's common sense. Money can be replaced; lives cannot," Vanover said.

I was just in S. Florida. A woman was robbed in a Wal-Mart parking lot. She handed over the money, and the thief stabbed her in the chest anyway.

WHY do people think that cooperating and being a Good Victim will save your life from people who get off on a power rush by using violence against their victims?

AF_INT1N0
January 1, 2006, 01:59 PM
You guys might not like my thoughts on this, but here goes. Where does this guy Brown get off pulling out his gun on a fleeing individual and ordering them to stop? Concealed carry is for personal defense and if the woman was fleeing how was Brown in immediate danger at that point. This is very dangerous ground. It is also believed that the two fired rounds mised their intended target, Where did those rounds go? There may be a lot more to this story, but we are all responding to the information given here.

I have a real issue with this type of action. If the facts are straight then I believe that Brown should be fired and possibly prosecuted, not for carrying a concealed weapon, but for potentially recklessly endangering any bystanders.

We are not police officers and it is not our job to attempt to stop fleeing bad guys (or girls). Sure he had a right to respond when the woman raised her gun, but she was responding to his actions, which if the story is accurate, amount to escalating the situation.

My initial knee jerk reaction was to be down on McDonalds, but after a little thought I changed my mind. I am still opposed to their position on concealed carry, but I am equally opposed to private citizens acting like police officers.


[/Flamesuit] Maybe if more people reacted in this manner the we wouldn't need to pay for so darn many police officers.
Society, specifically American Society was designed to police itself. The fact that it no longer does is the reason we have so much crime. Why is it that pro-gun states have less crime (even in the cities)? Because people with guns are hard to rob.
Everytime you hear about someone foiling a robbery, the next immediate sentence from the press is "We don't need any vigilantes running around foiling crimes"

IMHO we need (many) more people doing this. Think of how many people would be saved if it were more hazzardous to your health to rob MC D's than to eat there.
[/Flame suit]

George S.
January 1, 2006, 02:02 PM
Guess I agree with The Goose in a way here. Had Brown been in fear for his life, then he had every right in the world to do whatever it took to protect himself. And when the woman directly threatened the co-worker, he could have used his pistol to protect him too (assuming state laws allow for this).

Once the robber began to flee, I would think the threat was over save for her "raising" her gun at Brown. If he thought his life was in danger at that moment, he was, IMHO, clearly justified in shooting at her. I don't see the rounds missing as an issue. Think of it this way; somebody just pointed a gun at you after sticking it in somebody elses back. Are you going to be as steady and as calm as a nice sunny day at the range?? I would be scared shyteless! I would have to think that sub-moa shooting right then would not be at the top of the old thought process. Maybe finding clean underwear, but not looking for a 10-ring.

As far as the robbery itself, I don't see where an McD's employee would be under any obligation to protect the company funds. That's the managers job and he would probably be under orders to turn over the money to an armed robber so as to avoid the potential for harm. I would think that Brown probably got some sort of information when he was hired as to the "rules". If that included not being allowed to carry a weapon, then he either should have not taken the job or understood the consequences. He got fired for breaking the rules.

Hot brass
January 1, 2006, 02:03 PM
No more Mickey D`s for me maw.

IdahoFarmer
January 1, 2006, 03:20 PM
There is rarely enough information available in media reports to effectively draw conclusions. However, I believe there are two genereal possibilitiies here.

1) If Brown felt he or the other employee were in continued imminent danger, then of course he had a right to draw his firearm.

2) If the imminent danger had ceased, that is where the question arises. It is a question of both "rights" and "judgement".

RIGHTS
Its my personal belief that we each have the "right" to stop crime including the appropriate use of a firearm. I believe one should adopt the same standards in the use of a firearm as law enforcement. (Draw when imminent danger is possible to persuade the possible source of imminent danger to comply, fire only if imminent life threatening danger presents itself and only if you are not jeopardizing innocents.)

JUDGEMENT
As a civilian we also need to be aware of the secondary risks and balance them with the situation at hand.

I found this interesting article on Citizen's Arrest:
http://www.constitution.org/grossack/arrest.htm


IdahoFarmer

Zundfolge
January 1, 2006, 04:24 PM
"Whitlow said that he's 'not overly enthused about untrained individuals engaging in stuff like that' "


how is he sure this individual was completely untrained?


In the minds of most of the sheeple, "trained" means "wears badge and gets pay check from city or state".


Brown could be a retired former Navy Seal, or spend a week every summer at Thunder Ranch, but since he's not a cop he's "untrained" :rolleyes:

Mannlicher
January 1, 2006, 05:01 PM
Since I am one of those old fashioned guys that thinks "gun control" means hitting your target, I think the guy should be fired. Wild shooting leaves the company wide open for lawsuits.

ChickenHawk
January 1, 2006, 05:23 PM
I don't see the rounds missing as an issue. Think of it this way; somebody just pointed a gun at you after sticking it in somebody elses back. Are you going to be as steady and as calm as a nice sunny day at the range?? I would be scared shyteless!I don't know about your state, but Texas law is clear on this. You are responsible for where your rounds go.

If you shoot a bystander then you have committed a crime, and you will likely be prosecuted for it. This is the case even if you really are defending your life (unlike this guy if the news report is accurate).

I guess the point is that the loved ones of the innocent you shoot won't think it's OK just because you were in danger when you killed their family member.

Know where you are shooting and be cognizant of what is behind your target.

Besides, if the robber was fleeing when the guy drew his gun then the threat was over. At that point he should have dialed 911 and counted himself lucky that no one did get hurt.

ChickenHawk

joab
January 1, 2006, 06:54 PM
McD's antigun policy has been well known for awhile.
Why is there this sudden outcry for a boycott because they fired an employee for violating a policy that he agreed to adhere to.

It is also fairly well known that most if not all fast food joints ban the carrying of weapons on their property by employees.

How many of the boycott advocates actively interview prospective fast food suppliers about their carry policies before sitting down to lunch, and reject the ones that do not have an acceptable policy?

I'm betting that the number hovers very close around none

sheepdip
January 1, 2006, 07:06 PM
oldschool , Yes it was New Albany, Indiana - Company store

JerryM
January 1, 2006, 07:56 PM
I agree that the policy is well known. Ditch the Rambo mentality, and don't try to be an off duty cop.
He got what he deserved.

Jerry

k_dawg
January 1, 2006, 08:05 PM
regardless of what we think did/did not happen, based on the article...

we have this

New Albany Detective Keith Whitlow said. "We don't have any reason to believe that Mr. Brown has violated any laws,"

that leads me to believe that he did, in fact, fire in lawful self defense.

Yooper
January 1, 2006, 08:24 PM
Disregarding the merits or lack thereof in this one incident, McDonald's has made their viewpoint known. They're "soft" on robberies. Perhaps they'll be robbed more often as a result.

Robert J McElwain
January 1, 2006, 09:09 PM
I suspect the policy is there because the corporate lawyers wanted to protect their a$$e$, and that, in the end, they will quietly reinstate the employee with back pay. At least, that's what they should do.

But they probably do need to have that policy written somewhere so as to avoid the liablitiy suits from every lawyer in the country.

Bob

Herself
January 1, 2006, 10:02 PM
In Indiana, if someone points a gun at you (we're not talking being painted by the occasional fool or clumsy person at the range*), you may shoot them: your life is in danger.

Indianapolis had a particularly clear example a year or so back, when a pizza delivery guy shot a would-be robber and then did everything they say you shouldn't: picked up the bad guy's gun, left the scene, talked and talked and talked before he got a lawyer, and so on. Nevertheless, the prosecuter decided it was a righteous shooting.

On the other hand, Indiana's pretty clear about the rights employers and employees have; if your employer has a "no guns" policy and you violate it, you may be fired. And that's exactly what happened to the pizza guy. Another pizza chain hired him shortly after!

If a criminal is running away, it is usually best to let him or her go. People don't always do what is best when under stress. Somebody robs your work and sprints past you, after holding a gun on a co-worker, you might not find it so easy to keep mum and let that person go.

--Herself
________________________
* So much for betterment of the species....

Firethorn
January 1, 2006, 10:07 PM
I'm not going to risk my ass to protect half a day's receipts at a McDonalds or any other joint.

I won't take action unless I think that they're going to hurt somebody, and that my interference will result in less harm to innocents.

chas_martel
January 2, 2006, 01:09 AM
Goose,

Please don't ever move to Texas. We don't need people like you down here.

In Texas this guy would have been no-billed as there was a felon fleeing
after dark. Besides, I am not sure, given what I read, that he shot someone
fleeing in the first place.

Your are another of those that want to see a big divide between cops
and the rest of us. In fact, by Texas law non-cops have more leeway
in shooting than do the cops.

BHPshooter
January 2, 2006, 02:41 AM
As far as the robbery itself, I don't see where an McD's employee would be under any obligation to protect the company funds. That's the managers job and he would probably be under orders to turn over the money to an armed robber so as to avoid the potential for harm. I would think that Brown probably got some sort of information when he was hired as to the "rules". If that included not being allowed to carry a weapon, then he either should have not taken the job or understood the consequences. He got fired for breaking the rules.

It's not about the company funds at all -- it's about stopping a lunatic who is putting people's lives in danger by holding them at gunpoint.

You seem to have fallen into the pit of "give the criminal what he wants, and he will go away," when in fact (as noted earlier in this thread), oftentimes the cretin will shoot/stab/maim the victim anyway.

Someone was robbing a store, holding people at gunpoint. People. The guy did the right thing, and although he needs some target practice, he ought to get a shiny medal.

Wes

GRB
January 2, 2006, 04:02 AM
The guy did the right thing, and although he needs some target practice, he ought to get a shiny medal.I have shot deer that went a long way after a definitely fatal shot. I once shot a guy, one bullet, 5 holes in his body, who left behind absolutely no blood trail. He was found a day or two later when he checked himself into a hospital. It could be our shooter was not off the mark but, we may never know for sure.

The Goose
January 2, 2006, 10:30 AM
Goose,

Please don't ever move to Texas. We don't need people like you down here.

In Texas this guy would have been no-billed as there was a felon fleeing
after dark. Besides, I am not sure, given what I read, that he shot someone
fleeing in the first place.

Your are another of those that want to see a big divide between cops
and the rest of us. In fact, by Texas law non-cops have more leeway
in shooting than do the cops.

I guess I have been living too long in backward MA and have become indoctrinated. Well, it is the new year and maybe this old dog can still learn.

I was in Texas last summer for vacation and will say that it is bar none the most beautiful place I have ever been and it certainly has more sensible laws then MA. However, I promise chas_martel that I will not move there. I wish I lived in Texas, but I won't move there.

V4Vendetta
January 2, 2006, 12:44 PM
The only time I go to Mcdonnalds is for the morning pancakes. Well that stops now.:fire: :cuss: I'll go to Bojangles. Better food anyway. I hope the guy gets a better job at another store.

Waitone
January 2, 2006, 02:01 PM
McD can make whatever rules it wants as a condition for employment. Prospective employees are free to accept the rules or not accept a job.

That said, what is missing in these kinds of incidents is the employee who was disarmed as a condition of employment has no legal recourse should said employee suffer injury which could have been avoidable should he or she was armed.

I'm all in favor of property rights, no problem. Where McD's and other companies skate in on the responsiblity side of the equation.

GRB
January 2, 2006, 02:04 PM
Where does this guy Brown get off pulling out his gun on a fleeing individual and ordering them to stop? Concealed carry is for personal defense and if the woman was fleeing how was Brown in immediate danger at that point.First of all the article does not say: 'the robber fled and then Mr. (note the use of Mr.) drew his weapon' but instead it says: "Brown pulled his gun out and ordered the fleeing robber to stop, he told police." The woman stopped but raised her own gun, Brown told police. . There is a subtle difference there and if you do not see it allow me to explain, that the way it is written could also imply he pulled it out, she fled, he ordered her to stop, she drew down on him.

The again, please tell me where is it written in the law of his state that you cannot pull out your gun if there is a possibly still a potential threat. If this armed robber was within pistols shot (assuming it was a pistol she had used) there was absolutely nothing wrong with Mr. Brown pulling out his weapon in anticipation of her possibly turning to fire at them. I have read enough reports of an armed criminal returning to the scene to wipe out witnesses after it had appeared the criminal had already fled. He can also order an armed robber to stop as to effect a citizens arrest. Being that the armed robber was in fact armed when he gave his command to stop, he had more than a reasonable belief to think his life would be in jeopardy when he did so since she had just committed an armed robbery in his presence. In addition, concealed carry does not preclude you from drawing your weapon to protect innocents other than yourself despite you saying it is only for personal defense of self. Your argument about where does Mr. Brown: "get off pulling out his gun on a fleeing individual and ordering them to stop?" is moot.

Now as to his missing; tell me exactly what is it that makes you certain that he missed. I once shot a deer, a small 120 pound deer, through the heart (tore of at least 1/4 of the heart right at the aorta) and also ripped up about 1/2 a lung (turned it to mush). The deer ran at least 100 yards away from where it stood when I shot it. Recently you may have heard of the Police officer in NYC who was shot fatally through the heart yet pursued a criminal (the guy who had shot him) for a couple minutes more. In addition there was the man just reportedly shot in his head (unknown to him at the time), who with bullet in his brain drove to work to tell his boss he could not make work that day because his head was bleeding and he needed to see a doctor. I once shot a mugger who tried to mug me. At least some of the police who responded told me I should never have drawn my weapon, I should never have fired it and that I may have killed an innocent bystander or been killed myself. They seemingly had the same mindset as you. Other police officers told me I had done the right thing. As it turned out, a day or two later, the mugger was found in a not to distant hospital. He had checked himself in with multiple gun shot wounds. I had only fired a single round at him as soon as my pistol cleared leather, then pointed my gun at his accomplice and fired one toward him. The police, despite 5 bullet holes in the hospitalized suspect, assured me that my one shot had been responsible. It had hit him in one of his thighs at groin level, it exited the thigh and went into one of his testicles, it passed through both of his testicles and exited the other side, it then entered the other thigh and traveled down until it stopped just next to his knee. This guy, after being shot, ran like a rabbit to flee. There was no blood left behind at the scene. Everyone thought I had missed, the police were absolutely certain of it. I thought the evidence made it seem as if I had missed, I was worried I had hit an innocent bystander as they slept in their apartment, but I was also at a loss to explain how I had missed at a pretty close range and after having been fairly certain right after the shot, that it had hit its mark.

Was I justified in shooting, let me assure you yeas I had been justified. A grand jury that investigated found such to be the case as did the police and my agency at the time, as did my agency's Internal Affairs. Had I missed, would it had made me any less justified to draw and fire than had I hit him? No it would not, the fact of a miss would not have effected whether or not I should have drawn. Would there have been a problem with a miss? Possibly. The second shot by the way was in essence a miss even though it had been right on the target of the accomplice. It was deflected by a windshield. Should I not have taken that shot - the accomplice clearly had a revolver in his hand as he was about to exit their car. The other guy had already pointed what appeared to be a gun at me and ordered me "don't move mother f-----".

If I shoot I must be responsible for each shot I take. People often misunderstand what exactly that means. It means you must be responsible in that you must have justification for each shot. It does not mean you will necessarily be criminally prosecuted if your shot hits an innocent bystander. The totality of the circumstances will be weighed before such a criminal prosecution, even here in this anti gun state of New York, wherein I reside. You maybe sued but even then you will not necessarily lose the law suit just because you wound up shooting an innocent bystander. There was no reckless endangerment involved in Mr. Brown's actions if the report of what he did is correct.

Of course maybe he really missed, then again, does anyone else ever miss under the stress of having a firearm pointed at them? Think about that before you answer. Would that make it reckless endangerment. I have been under the stress of several life threatening situations. My sphincter muscle starts to get the pucker factor - you know where it tries to prevent a smelly mess in my pants. That causes lots of stress on the body, that along with what seems to be a gallon of adrenalin pumping into your system, and just being scared that you are potentially about to lose your life. Tell me, should only police use guns in situations like this? What about if they miss, or is it you think they do not miss because of some special talent they have. I have been an LEO for over 26 years. For 14 of those years I was a firearms instructor as a collateral duty. LEOs often shoot like stink pickles. As to this incident: I guess time may tell, if the armed robber is ever arrested, as to whether or not he hit his mark. If she is not arrested, we may never know if he hit his mark or not.

As for this: We are not police officers and it is not our job to attempt to stop fleeing bad guys (or girls). Sure he had a right to respond when the woman raised her gun, but she was responding to his actions, which if the story is accurate, amount to escalating the situation. Are you kidding, you mean to tell me you in essence somewhat justify the act of the robber by saying she was reacting to him? You say he escalated the situation. In fact he attempted to have the situation end by ordering her to STPO. That is not an escalation of anything. Drawing a weapon in self defense against possible or potential threat is also not escalation. Her turning and pointing g the firearm at him is an escalation of the situation. I find it hard to believe you even wrote what I just made comment on. You apparently find it against all that is proper for him to have reacted the way he did to her just threatening lives, robbing McDonalds, and then fleeing (if that is the actual correct order) with a pistol still in her hand posing a potential imminent threat to anyone who may have accidentally gotten in her way. You imply he does not have the right to order her to stop! The fact is that, Mr. Brown would have taken an inappropriate action had he not drawn his pistol to the ready to be prepared for any further threat that may have occurred - such as the return of the armed robber or the threat of an as yet unnoticed accomplice, and so forth. As for his ordering her to stop - to find any fault with that is just, in my opinion, a rather sad commentary on a certain mindset that seems to have infected our society as of late - the let's do everything we can to criminalize the victim who fights back mindset.

I must ask though: Did you write what you wrote just to stir the pot and try to have the grease spill over and ignite the flames? You begin by saying how "you guys" may not like your point! So what if we do not like it, is there any logical reason to state that before you start except that you are trying to rile people up before they even read further. You seem to be baiting us, trying to stir us up before we even see what you have to say. Then you basically end by saying your initial "knee jerk" reaction was basically in direct opposition to all else you had written, implying that you initial reaction was emotional and was incorrect. You seem to be implying that others here also had "knee jerk" reactions. My responses to this thread were not knee jerk at all, nor were others from what I have seen. I carefully weighed the reported facts I know about this incident. Then I replied.


Sincerely with best regards,
Glenn B

Biker
January 2, 2006, 02:15 PM
Jeez Glen, did ya really have to shoot 'im right in the McNuggets? :p
Biker

joab
January 2, 2006, 02:31 PM
The only time I go to Mcdonnalds is for the morning pancakes. Well that stops now.:fire: :cuss: I'll go to Bojangles. Better food anyway. I hope the guy gets a better job at another store.So what's Bojangles policy on employee CCW?
How many employees have they fired for carrying on the job?

V4Vendetta
January 2, 2006, 03:59 PM
I have no idea. I've never heard of anyone being fired for that at Bojangles. I have heard that Mcdonalds has a policy of being a anti-gun establishment. I was at my local Chinese food place where on the door I knoticed a NRA sticker. I went back inside & dumped all my loose change into their tip jar. It cheered me up to find a place not scared to put that kind of sticker on their door.:)

carebear
January 2, 2006, 04:09 PM
We hire police as a convenience so that we as citizens no longer have to respond to the "hue and cry".

Although we therefore give them the right to act on our behalf, that does not absolve us of our continuing responsibility as citizens to respond to crimes occuring in front of us.

Police have more limited powers of arrest and use of deadly force than the citizenry at large precisely because those powers are delegated to them.

Don't get the balance of power and authority backwards.

The Goose
January 2, 2006, 04:29 PM
(I must ask though: Did you write what you wrote just to stir the pot and try to have the grease spill over and ignite the flames? You begin by saying how "you guys" may not like your point! So what if we do not like it, is there any logical reason to state that before you start except that you are trying to rile people up before they even read further. You seem to be baiting us, trying to stir us up before we even see what you have to say. Then you basically end by saying your initial "knee jerk" reaction was basically in direct opposition to all else you had written, implying that you initial reaction was emotional and was incorrect. You seem to be implying that others here also had "knee jerk" reactions. My responses to this thread were not knee jerk at all, nor were others from what I have seen. I carefully weighed the reported facts I know about this incident. Then I replied.


Sincerely with best regards,
Glenn B

Well Glenn B you have a lot to say and I read it carefully. It certainly gives me pause for thought and I sincerely appreciate the time you took to write it out. I still have the same concerns as I initially stated. No doubt it is partially the way I read and interpreted the post and it is partially the way I have been taught in terms of where I live. Regardless, my post was sincere. You may disagree with my position or my writing style or my use of language, but not my sincerity. My references to knee jerk reactions were only addressed to myself and implied nothing of others. Right now I am headed out, but I will respond later in more detail.

joab
January 2, 2006, 04:52 PM
I have no idea. I've never heard of anyone being fired for that at Bojangles. I have heard that Mcdonalds has a policy of being a anti-gun establishment. When you hear that Bojangles has the same policy will you boycott them tooI was at my local Chinese food place where on the door I knoticed a NRA sticker. I went back inside & dumped all my loose change into their tip jar. It cheered me up to find a place not scared to put that kind of sticker on their door.:)Did you ask if they even knew what the NRA was.

If you are going to boycott McDs for being an "anti gun establishment" why would you not take the time to actually do the research yourself to find out who is actually worthy of your pro gun dollars.
There comes a time forthe saber rattlingto stop and the fight to begin. And the saber rattling is getting real old real quick

GRB
January 2, 2006, 04:58 PM
Well Glenn B you have a lot to say and I read it carefully. It certainly gives me pause for thought and I sincerely appreciate the time you took to write it out. I still have the same concerns as I initially stated. No doubt it is partially the way I read and interpreted the post and it is partially the way I have been taught in terms of where I live. Regardless, my post was sincere. You may disagree with my position or my writing style or my use of language, but not my sincerity. My references to knee jerk reactions were only addressed to myself and implied nothing of others. Right now I am headed out, but I will respond later in more detail.
OK by me, just asking, had me wondering. As our disagreement, that is all well and fine, one of the things that makes this country so wondeful - we can disagree and not be put in froont of a firing squad.

Jeez Glen, did ya really have to shoot 'im right in the McNuggets?Jeez Glen, did ya really have to shoot 'im right in the McNuggets? They used to call me Ballseye for a while back then!

Happy New Year,
GB

If you enjoyed reading about "Mc Chicken - Worker who shot at robber suspended" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!