First incident of CCW used in WI shooting.

Good to hear. Might want to change the name of the thread though.

Glad to hear this! It's good that nobody got hurt and it sounds like the good guys came out on top

Looks like he was taught well & knew what he was doing...........Way to go dude !

I don't want to watch the video while at work but it sounds like it worked out ok.

Well it was bound to happen sooner or later.
The first shooting here in Texas after the CHL came into affect was treated pretty badly by the powers that be towards the licensed shooter but was rectified in court in his favor.
On one hand all is good that it turned out in favor of the legally licensed shooter but you can be sure those in your state,just like mine,that were against licensed carry,will start the "blood in the streets"rhetoric.

blood in the streets is only a bad thing if it's the blood of an innocent.

I know that Frog.
But it's those hand wringging anti gun people I am reffering to that are always looking for an excuse to say "I told you so!!.

93 days after passage, Wisconsin CC proves its worth.

Man was an idiot.
You don't open fire in a store when all that's at stake is money.

Too much of a risk to bystanders.

AFS

Do we know for sure that money was all that was at stake? There was a shotgun involved. How was it used? We're threats made? Was the shotgun pointed at anyone?

"The store has two security guards but neither was able to stop the robbery as they are un-armed."

I think you got a point here. I haven't read the original article and I'm not going to, but If the only thing this guy accomplished was to stop a robbery I think he's gonna have some 'splainin to do, and he hasn't helped the cause at all.

Man was an idiot.
You don't open fire in a store when all that's at stake is money.

Click to expand...

Wait a minute. If the robbers are pointing a shotgun at someone there is more at stake than money. Just because a robber says, "I don't want to hurnt nobody." doesn't mean he won't. I don't know about you, but I don't trust the word of someone robbing me!

It may or may not have been a good idea for this guy to open fire, but apprently he did well enough to get the job done without getting anyone else hurt and for that he earns many props in my book!

This is a news article, after all, too. "Opened fire" probably means "put three well placed shots directly to the bg's chest".
Just sayin'.

smalls said:

This is a news article, after all, too. "Opened fire" probably means "put three well placed shots directly to the bg's chest".
Just sayin'.

Click to expand...

I had a similar thought during the video. News stories aren't just about news, but at least as much about viewers, readers, subscribers, etc. The reporter's account seems to lack the necessary details--specifically regarding the BG and CCW actions in the store--to justify the phrase "opened fire."

"unarmed security guards"...

There's an oxymoron...

So what, you have to wait until the robbers shoot someone before you shoot at them? How many unarmed people have been killed in robberies just because the robbers didn't want witnesses, or because they just felt like killing someone? Are you gonna tell him to "freeze" first? How do you know he won't pull the trigger as soon as he sees you pointing a gun at him?
I think as soon as a guy (or two, in this case) decides to walk into a store brandishing a shotgun, he's just made the decision to get shot at. It may or may not happen; in this case it did, and it may very well have saved lives.

You don't open fire in a store when all that's at stake is money.

Click to expand...

No.
You do not trust the good intentions of violent felons.

Trusting someone who casually endangers your life is the stupid plan.

Weedy said:

So what, you have to wait until the robbers shoot someone before you shoot at them?

Click to expand...

Nope, you have to wait for the robber to give you written declaration of intent

I don't know what exactly the situation was, but when you're faced with a deadly weapon, you have to make decisions quickly or you won't get to make decisions at all. Funnily enough, decisions to use firearms defensively work out in a good way much more often than not (look at some of the research by Gary Kleck).

I can't critique the CCW holder's actions as I don't know enough about what happened.

There are times you may not want to intervene in an armed robbery and times you may need to act. It depends on what you, at the time, think is the safest play.

But, the blanket idea of "don't shoot because it's only money" is false as you don't have a guarantee that the robbers will "keep their promise" and not hurt anyone if they get the money.

There are plenty of examples of armed robbers of businesses who "get the money" and then shoot anyway. Maybe they don't want to leave witnesses, maybe they just want to shoot someone. It doesn't matter if you are the one shot.

Like I said though, you have to do what you think is the safest thing to do in that specific situation. Sometimes that might involve complying, or complying until you get a better opportunity, and sometimes it might involve taking decisive, violent, action as sooon as possible.

I know for me one of my "triggers for action" is if the robbers attempt to herd the employees and customers into a back room. I know of too many times when that's where the robbers have shot the witnesses for me to let myself get herded like that without fighting back.

Man was an idiot.
You don't open fire in a store when all that's at stake is money.

Click to expand...

So you already know that he's not going to "cap" (kill) the cashier to gain "face" (respect) with his "homies" (scumbags)? Gang members have been known to do that for both gaining respect and a lot of times for a gang initiation.

Just to show how unpredictable armed robbers can be twice in the last six months a pair of bad guys came into a small store and without any warnings or problems from the clerk or customers just opened fire.
Fortunately in either case a customer or clerk was not killed but in one of these incidents the clerk was able to return fire and wound one of the robbers.
There is way too much at risk dealing with someone who comes into a store with a gun trying to rob it of a few dollars and expecting him or them to be rational.

Man was an idiot.
You don't open fire in a store when all that's at stake is money.

Click to expand...

Sooooo..... You're saying we should trust armed ribbers right up until the moment they shoot us?

In talking to a LEO friend about this earlier today he said there were a coupla concerns. It stems from the fact that there was a legal sign outside the building prohibiting bringing firearms inside. This means the shooter, altho he saved the day, could face criminal charges. If the state does not bring charges against the shooter, it would set precedence and mean the signs mean nuttin'. If there are criminal charges filed against the shooter, since this did not happen in his home or on property he owns, Castle Doctrine does not apply and he could face a civil lawsuit from the kid he wounded.

WI has force of law concerning no gun signs?