Albuquerque Store Clerk Shoots Armed Robber

[nwilliams]

I live in Albuquerque and this city is going to hell, last I heard we were up there at the top of this of highest crime rate cities in the US. This woman refused to be a victim, good for her. If I owned a convenience store, especially in this city I would require my employees to open carry and pay for them to get firearms training. Armed robbery here in Albuquerque is becoming the norm, it hardly even makes the news anymore, enough is enough it's time the good people of this city start standing up for themselves because our police force is vastly understaffed and stretched extremely thin.

http://krqe.com/2017/09/19/store-clerk-who-shot-armed-suspect-says-shed-do-it-again/

 

[Speedo66]

For what it's worth, related article says she's been fired.

http://krqe.com/2017/09/20/albuquerque-store-clerk-fired-after-shooting-attempted-robbery-suspect/

 

[Slamfire]

I have not found a web copy of its employee policies, but Circle K has fired employees who have used lethal force to survive armed robberies.

Typically, a Corporation prefers a dead employee to a dead criminal. If an employee kills a criminal, no matter how justified it may be, there is the potential for a lawsuit against the company. However, if the criminal kills an employee, that becomes a law enforcement matter and the Corporation is essentially blameless. I am certain everyone who has ever worked in some menial job has been trained to be passive submissive when confronted by armed killers. This is not because this is the best survival strategy for the employee, it is however, the lowest cost alternative for the company.

 

[Klint Beastwood]

better to be fired than dead.
Better to be judged by 12 than carried by six.

 

[hdwhit]

Klint Beastwood wrote:
Better to be judged by 12 than carried by six.

Keep in mind that everything you write on-line (including something like Klint's adage) can be obtained from an archive service and used by the prosecutor in a criminal suit or the plaintiff in a civil suit to show that you were pre-disposed to shoot rather than try to find a way not to.

I was on a trial team once (had nothing to do with a shooting) regarding engineering malpractice where the forensic team consisted of myself and an associate. The cyber team had maybe five people on it searching internet archives for evidence that the engineer had a cavalier attitude towards people's life.

 

[Klint Beastwood]

I say this as im not that worried. However good luck trying to disprove mistaking identity. I mean, klint beastwood? seriously? Forum on a phone....not happening. Especially if your phone is in the vicinity of a crime scene. This isnt amateur hour here. Now im not going to go into details with how to be a criminal, especially with the rules here on THR, but anytime the gov, or state has a chance to build up a case against you..even the potential, they are not your friend. Always make yourself a hard target. That being said, I stand by what I said, you wont have your day in court if you are dead. I think that is an obvious fact. So big brother can go chase their tales all they want. For those that like their tail between their legs and let every liability control everything they do, well I guess America's principles of freedom is a mute point. You are already a prisoner to yourself.

 

[Kleanbore]

However good luck trying to disprove mistaking identity. I mean, klint beastwood? seriously? Forum on a phone....not happening.

What on Earth are you trying to say?

 

[Klint Beastwood]

It means, that there's a lot more to it. That for one, to be used against in example (me), someone will have to know I have this account anyways. That my device would have to be know, and be collected for some forensic nerd to digitally tear apart. That the email the account is connected to would have to be mine. That my real name...which is obviously not klint beastwood would have to be additionally proven to be...me. Not someone else using my device if this device is found, or even put in question. I mean, if they are doing all that in a criminal case particularly, (in regards to a ccw shooting) you're already deep into it. Your going to need a good lawyer regardless. I know from first hand experience. I'm not paranoid. Its all going be taken seriously. I would agree it would be for sure used to turn a jury against you, if found. For civil suit, or liability. Someone being hired by the people seeking compensation will start investigating these types of things...who's klint beastwood to them? I dont have a facebook. I don't tweet. They can look up my military information, or whatevers available to them, sure..nothing I can do about that. Although them coming out of nowhere saying, I said, "better to be judged by 12 then carried by six"...is going to be a lot of work...that im sure, they will attempt, like hdwhit's team. Let me ask how did you know which archives to search? The internet is a big place, im sure you had a way of deducing where to look in the first place lol. It was either on a device, in the emails, borwser/cookies/hard drive/ or his name or email was out there and information was in the profile, or someone snitched on him. There's more to defending yourself then with just a gun. Staying anonymous is a huge plus. Especially to avoid a wrongful conviction, because the court doesnt care.
Knowing I just gave some information away, like I said before, im not worried. Only so much can happen in one life time, the probability of bad stuff happening again, is low, but if it's there again...then so be it. My problem not yours.

 

[JohnKSa]

However good luck trying to disprove mistaking identity. I mean, klint beastwood? seriously? Forum on a phone....not happening.

It's not that difficult to tie internet activity to an actual identity. Most people think they are far more anonymous than they really are.

Besides, if it's gotten to the point that they're looking for evidence on the internet to aid in a prosecution, they probably already have your computers/mobile devices and can work it from that end instead of starting from scratch.

It's best not to say things on the internet that you wouldn't say if you had to sign your real name.

 

[Klint Beastwood]

[QUOTE="JohnKSa, post: 10648936, member: 2321"]It's not that difficult to tie internet activity to an actual identity. Most people think they are far more anonymous than they really are.
Most people are dumb. Most people give a false confession the second things look to be easier. Most people are hard until things get real.
Keep in mind, as I said, im not trying to write a user guide to being a criminal. It is more difficult if you take the right precautions is the point. The are procedures before they start tapping your internet, and using a VPN is a simple step to take anyways, just alone, and in general. You all should all use a VPN. I'm sure the computer nerds know what im talking about. Going into the system bios and locking the usb ports and boot up settings. 90% of people here have no idea about things like that or even why thats relevant, especially traveling overseas...or leaving your stuff in a hotel.... People have jobs to set up device security if you don't know how to do your own.. If you are a hard target, then thats a good thing.

Besides, if it's gotten to the point that they're looking for evidence on the internet to aid in a prosecution, they probably already have your computers/mobile devices and can work it from that end instead of starting from scratch.
agreed entirely. I mean, it can be round about long dirty drawn out convo as to the details. It's always case specific. Do they have the right device? Why are they looking for the device anyways? Depends yea?

It's best not to say things on the internet that you wouldn't say if you had to sign your real name
If my real name was on it, id still be the same *******. I don't bend my beliefs out of fear. However, my point was, that doesn't mean be dumb about it, and make yourself a target. If you stand for something, right or wrong, people will always be there trying to tear you down. Fact.
Although your still probably right. Most people think they are smarter than they are, and that leads to a false sense of security. Maybe this can be used against me in the future when they archieve my stuff. "Play stupid games, Win stupid prices"

.[/QUOTE]

 

[Moparnut]

I have not found a web copy of its employee policies, but Circle K has fired employees who have used lethal force to survive armed robberies.

Typically, a Corporation prefers a dead employee to a dead criminal. If an employee kills a criminal, no matter how justified it may be, there is the potential for a lawsuit against the company. However, if the criminal kills an employee, that becomes a law enforcement matter and the Corporation is essentially blameless. I am certain everyone who has ever worked in some menial job has been trained to be passive submissive when confronted by armed killers. This is not because this is the best survival strategy for the employee, it is however, the lowest cost alternative for the company.

I find it ironic that OSHA mandates require companies to have a safe working environment and can be fined or held liable for not providing the proper PPE or diffusing hostile situations. However, when a clerk at a convenience store pulls a firearm and uses it in self defense they get fired. As far as I am concerned a firearm is no different than having PPE when in certain occupations. Maybe businesses should be held liable for not providing a certain level of security if a situation goes south.

 

[drk1]

Your concerns about your city are understandable. It's happening everywhere and it's happening more and more frequently. Here is an example from three days ago in Cincinnati, Ohio, were the clerk shot and killed the "attempted robber." Other stories referred to this person as the "alleged robber" or "alleged gunman." http://www.cincinnati.com/story/new...rk-shot-attempted-robber-fairmount/687786001/
A few days before this a man was arrested in Lebanon, Indiana, after he called 911 about teenagers trespassing and damaging his property. When the police arrived, they arrested him and not the bad guys. http://www.timessentinel.com/news/c...cle_bda46397-9d43-5564-baa6-dffdacff947f.html
There is hardly a day that goes by that I don't witness some type of crime and/or criminal activity. Some incidents are big and others are small, and althought I'm not a police officer it's clear to anyone with eyes that the overall lawlessness of society is obviously getting worse. Today it was simply a handfull of traffic violations, but one of them resulted in a motorcycle/car crash. Last week it was people trying to hit me with their cars/trucks while I was picking up trash along the roadside. After three attempts to run me down, the last one being a jerk who drove across the yellow line, across the oncoming lane of traffic and onto the grass, I finally had enough and called the police. When the officer arrived, he was simpathetic but just shook his head and said there was really noting he could do because he "didn't witness the alleged event." So, in essence we have become a society in which some people believe they are entitled to special treatment and others who take the "see no evil" approach. At this point, I'm honestly glad that my years are coming to an end. I don't want to be around in 20 years to see how bad it gets!

 

[Kleanbore]

...someone will have to know I have this account anyways. .... That the email the account is connected to would have to be mine. That my real name...which is obviously not klint beastwood would have to be additionally proven to be...me

That's not the way it works.

That my device would have to be know, and be collected for some forensic nerd to digitally tear apart.

They don't really need it, but if you receive a subpoena for it and a preservation letter, you will be subject to punishment if you do not comply.

I mean, if they are doing all that in a criminal case particularly, (in regards to a ccw shooting) you're already deep into it. Your going to need a good lawyer regardless.

Of course you are "already deep into it", in a shooting case (criminal or civil), fraud, divorce.... And yes , you will need competent legal representation. The problem is, what you post can make it that much more difficult for you and your attorney.

I dont have a facebook. I don't tweet.

Alrighty then,

Staying anonymous is a huge plus.

If you think that using a made-up name makes you "anonymous", you are mistaken indeed.

Read and heed this:

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...iderations-of-posting-on-the-internet.604948/​

 

[GAF]

I for one will not worry about what I have said here or on any other forum.
Right now this forum has my IP address. I suspect any one with a little bit of computer/internet knowledge
to be able to find out the company that is my internet provider and time and date I am leasing this IP address..
It would be very easy to connect the dots and find me . You are not as anonymous as you think.

 

[Reloadron]

I found the below quote to be interesting"

“I think it’s terrible,” said David Haacke of the attempted robbery. Haacke works at the Chevron at Montgomery and San Mateo.
He said convenience store clerks have to brace for the worst in their field of work.
“It’s definitely a risk of the business,” Haacke said.
However, Haacke does not keep a weapon on him at work.
“That’s probably against our company policy,” Haacke said.

So if you want to rob a convenient store of sorts the place to go is mentioned above. Just make sure Mr. Haacke is working. Simply request the money, he will oblige and then you can leave. Be sure to wish Mr. Haacke a nice day and always say a cheerful thank you.

Ron

 

[Slamfire]

I found the below quote to be interesting"


So if you want to rob a convenient store of sorts the place to go is mentioned above. Just make sure Mr. Haacke is working. Simply request the money, he will oblige and then you can leave. Be sure to wish Mr. Haacke a nice day and always say a cheerful thank you.

Ron

It was not that long ago that a Convenience store in my town was robbed. The armed robber took the 25 year old woman clerk in the back, made her strip naked, and then shot her twice in the face, killing her. I hope the same does not happen to Mr Haacke, sometimes these armed robbers are "just trying to make a name for themselves".

 

[Klint Beastwood]

That's not the way it works.

They don't really need it, but if you receive a subpoena for it and a preservation letter, you will be subject to punishment if you do not comply.

Of course you are "already deep into it", in a shooting case (criminal or civil), fraud, divorce.... And yes , you will need competent legal representation. The problem is, what you post can make it that much more difficult for you and your attorney.

Alrighty then,

If you think that using a made-up name makes you "anonymous", you are mistaken indeed.

Read and heed this:

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...iderations-of-posting-on-the-internet.604948/​

I've read it. Its the usual be very afraid of everything type lawyer talk. MAC address needs to be protected by masking the ISP. Even if someone is stealing your internet, you can still be blamed as its coming through your hardware. however you can also see every device on a network, that is connected to that network. So there's a few things you can do, even more ways to screw it up. I'm pretty sure that it is the most common method to tracking a persons activity via internet. ISP to hardware. Umm there needs to be a warrant for a stingray to be used....i dont know if you read about that whole debacle, in recent news. LEO's tried so hard for so many years to keep that Harris tech out of the courts too.
Speaking of phones...prepay. Yeah there are ways, but like i said, its a lot harder to pin things on people when you make yourself a hard target...
A good used iphone, especially Verizon or att with a clean ESN can easily be unlocked and take a prepaid sim. The prepaid sim, dont always have to be registered in a name...with a contract.. etc. the literal definition of a burner. If a iphone is like a hard drive, and can be forensically analyzed...which it is, and it can...none of your information should be entered into the phone, icloud needs to stay off. if on a used phone, the icloud was never logged out, you are essentially still using the original owners phone. You'll get data. You'll get cell service...
like i said, the possibility of having a good case of mistaken identity.
Should I start writing the guide to how to ghost the law now?
The 4 common methods of criminal data mining to start maybe...entity extraction be first and foremost...
Again, im not worried. I can write a nice little what not to do to avoid digital forensics if you'd like. I mean literally...i still probably have some papers i've written on it.. the problem is, not everyone has the same knowledge. You got the "im untouchable" mentality...and you got the "if i online bank, ill be hacked and lose everything" people... the ladder being one of the common tail between the legs type personalities. People have always been afraid of things they dont understand. However if, you leave yourself unprotected then yeah, you'd probably get caught up.

 

[Klint Beastwood]

oh i forgot, in addition to a VPN, because the VPN service knows your IP, you can use TOR. Think of it as an IP scrambler. They can both be used in conjunction.
The deep web is something the courts have a hard time doing anything with because um...other people are just um..better than webbing than they are I guess.

 

[Sniper66]

I'm a retired psychologist and during my practice years I was called upon to conduct Critical Incident Debriefings at Banks that had been robbed; it is a stressful event. Every bank I worked for (there were many) had a policy of passive compliance with an armed robber's demands. During the debriefing meetings, that policy was frequently the bigger subject of concern. It leaves employees feeling helpless and vulnerable. On one occasion an employee ignored the policy and followed the robber who was on foot. His actions resulted in the eventual arrest of the criminal. The last I heard his action were "up for review" and one possible outcome would be that he would be fired. Not sure what finally happened, but he was immediately suspended pending the review and made to feel like he had committed an unpardonable offense. Sad.

 

[Kleanbore]

've read it. Its the usual be very afraid of everything type lawyer talk.

Actually, no. It is based on real cases. Some of them resulted in criminal convictions; others, in large civil damage settlements; others in loss of livelihood; others, in the loss of contracts, and even in disbarment of contractors; and still others, in extremely lengthy and costly trials that should never have happened. Of course, it was tailored to THR-related subjects, but it is by no means limited to them, or based on them.

"Be afraid"? No. Be prudent.

That starts with not saying or writing or posting things that can be used against you.

This isn't about identity protection or data security. It is about the creation of unfavorable evidence.

Again, im not worried. I can write a nice little what not to do to avoid digital forensics if you'd like.

Would it start with "ignore a subpoena" and "do not comply with a preservation letter"?

Try either one, and you will have cooked your own goose.

 

[Reloadron]

It was not that long ago that a Convenience store in my town was robbed. The armed robber took the 25 year old woman clerk in the back, made her strip naked, and then shot her twice in the face, killing her. I hope the same does not happen to Mr Haacke, sometimes these armed robbers are "just trying to make a name for themselves".

Unfortunately that is something we see all too often. An unarmed store clerk is shot and killed during an armed robbery when they don't even resist in the least.

Ron

 

[Kleanbore]

On one occasion an employee ignored the policy and followed the robber who was on foot.

That was a foolish move by any standard.

The problem occurs when one is in the eye of the storm, when it cannot be reliably determined whiter lives would be taken even if the employees comply.

If I were delegated the responsibility, and the authority for, the protection of a bank's assets, I would be extremely reluctant to require my employees to be defenseless-- unarmed and untrained.

I would, however, make it crystal clear that no one should put anyone at risk simply to protect property.

 

[Klint Beastwood]

it would only be writ if a) there was a reason/relevant or what some believes to be or b) if someone snitches. Being compelled to give up your stuff is not random. If the subpoena isnt to compel you to be a witness...which they cant make you testify against yourself...then its to get your stuff so they can go through it.
So if you know its going to happen, either have it set up as a lifestyle that if you lose it, it will never contain relevant traceable data, which goes back to identiy protection and data security..make the device unknown, or dont use any of the above if its a concern. Its not just about anonymity. Data mining, network analysis, log file analysis, using the file system data analyzer. etc, ARE ACTUALLY what they are doing to your device when the forensic nerds get them.... Those ARE the methods that the nerd will be testifying in the court (or on the phone) against you after talking for 30 minutes about all his "experience." Because the bar for being called upon as a expert witness is pretty low.

As far as cooking gooses and complying...I would never dream about suggesting to say that you should do anything illegal, but the gov/courts/plaintiff will forsure try to cheat you in anyway they can..of course its not considered cheating...its all "interpretation." With all that, a mans got to do what a mans got to do.

In a crminal case its the gov's "burden" and in civil...well look at OJ and dont do anything he did.
My point to all this, isnt that you are wrong...because your not. Its that, MY post on the high road...is very unlikely to end up in any court room...

 

[jmorris]

Keep in mind that everything you write on-line (including something like Klint's adage) can be obtained from an archive service and used by the prosecutor in a criminal suit or the plaintiff in a civil suit to show that you were pre-disposed to shoot rather than try to find a way not to.

Ok, to you think everyone on a jury would think it's better to be dead that alive?

I am not seeing anything in post #4 that seems anything other than logical.

 

[Kleanbore]

Ok, to you think everyone on a jury would think it's better to be dead that alive?

I am not seeing anything in post #4 that seems anything other than logical.

Good input!

It is logical.

The risk, and I'm not sure how serious it might be, is that it can be interpreted (made to sound) as a possible indication that the person had a general predisposition to violence. That could easily impinge upon his credibility in his contention that the use of deadly force had been necessary (unavoidable).

In my opinion, it would become important only if (1) a defendant could not present sufficient exculpatory evidence, or the state's evidence or that of a plaintiff is rather damaging and (2) there were other things that, taken together with those "logical" words, might paint a more sinister picture of the defendant' state of mind.

Without similar stuff, the defense should, again in my opinion, be able to argue with some effectiveness that there was nothing really indicative of a disregard for human life. Perhaps a juror or two might even think "dad had a sign like that".

Not for me, thanks. No "Protected by Smith and Wesson" stickers on my house or car.