Another "what a nice world we live in" story...

[mrokern]

Oh for heaven's sake. I AM married, and my wife would rather have her husband alive than dead over some schoolyard "honor". Try to hurt my wife, yes, I'll tear your throat out. This situation, however, DID NOT NEED TO ESCALATE!

Guns are for defending life, not for defending your honor. A bashed ego is not a terminal condition.

-Mark

 

[Fred Fuller]

From the OP:

I for one am glad there are people that still believe in doing the right thing, I just wish they were better prepared and could have made better decisions.

Since this is still S&T, and since we're three pages into this discussion now, can we talk about how to be better prepared, and how to make better decisions when faced with a situation like this?

The first decision of course is whether to get involved or not. The decision not to get physically involved in trying to stop a petty theft will pretty much eliminate the necessity to make further use of force decisions in most cases. For those who regularly go armed, it's a good idea to keep in mind that any altercation we get involved in is automatically a gunfight, because we brought a gun to the fight.

But for those who feel compelled to get involved in stopping petty theft, how would you suggest going about doing it wisely, legally and safely?

lpl

 

[Deanimator]

Since this is still S&T, and since we're three pages into this discussion now, can we talk about how to be better prepared, and how to make better decisions when faced with a situation like this?

1. Be aware of your environment and others in it.
2. ALWAYS go armed where lawful to do so.
3. Carry your firearm in a manner and condition conducive to safe, effective and immediate use.
4. Identify and be prepared to use cover and concealment.
5. If something seems "wrong" it often is.
6. If you have to respond to a situation with deadly force, do so without hesitation and until the threat(s) is neutralized.

 

[mrokern]

For those who regularly go armed, it's a good idea to keep in mind that any altercation we get involved in is automatically a gunfight, because we brought a gun to the fight.

But for those who feel compelled to get involved in stopping petty theft, how would you suggest going about doing it wisely, legally and safely?

lpl

Lee, I think your comments above pretty well cover it. If you are carrying, ANY confrontation you become involved in is an armed confrontation.

You must always ask yourself: "Is this worth my life? Is this worth my freedom?"

You may lose one or the other any time you get into an armed confrontation.

There are situations where I would get involved. I couldn't stand by and watch someone be killed, for example. That would be worth risking my life, because I couldn't live with myself if I didn't act. But that's just me. There's no shame in protecting oneself in such a scenario...each of us must answer the question within our own abilities and values.

I won't get involved for petty crime beyond being a good witness. My own property isn't worth my life to me, much less someone else's property. Again, that's just me.

-Mark

 

[Derek Zeanah]

Guns are for defending life, not for defending your honor. A bashed ego is not a terminal condition.

This summed it up nicely.

 

[Webbj0219]

For me to intervene would be a concience thing. Like at work when I see a coworker stealing something I call them out on it. Times when I havent I feel guilty afterward, liker a co-conspirator. Like if I say nothing Im incouraging them, If I say something then wether they do it or not, they know where I stand and can make their own decision.

So thats my bias in this case. Thats why I agree with the man saying something about the beer. But for me, hopefully I would be carrying at that time. once the badguy starts waving the gun around the store and threatening ppl with it, I believe he would be fair game from an SD standpoint. Hope I would be able to make a shot, though I admit I dont feel very confident in my abilities in that regard. Definetely need more practice. But maybe a good opportunity would be when he was approaching my wife he would probably had his back to me. Though once the guy hit my wife and walked away, I dont think it would still be a good SD situation. I would definetely feel like revenge, just dont think the courts would be on my side at that point.

 

[Mikhail Weiss]

Since this is still S&T, and since we're three pages into this discussion now, can we talk about how to be better prepared, and how to make better decisions when faced with a situation like this?

Saying something to a seemingly unarmed man about stealing doesn't seem a particularly bad thing to do.

But pursing an armed man does.

S&T-wise, anyone in the unfortunate Mr. Taylor's shoes would be better served 911-ing the local police to tell them something like this: “My wife was just assaulted by a gunman! He looks like this! He's leaving on foot, headed such-n-such a direction! He's armed! He's dangerous!”

Advantage: no need to pursue an armed man, the satisfaction of vengeance for the threats, the assault, and most important of all, survival.

 

[Four Knives]

The wife wouldn't have gotten hit if they hadn't been standing literally 6 inches from the door after the thief went to return the beer.

Surveillance pics show him exiting the door with gun in hand already and the woman standing within inches of the exit and his route out of there.

Very tragic, but there were a million actions the deceased could have taken that would have prevented this - I cannot for the life of me understand why the family remained like sentries at the exit of the store.

If you want to stop every beer run in america, fine, but don't put yourself and your family in peril by blocking his exit a second time to give him another dose of intimidation.

Poorly played.

 

[hirundo82]

1. Be aware of your environment and others in it.
2. ALWAYS go armed where lawful to do so.
3. Carry your firearm in a manner and condition conducive to safe, effective and immediate use.
4. Identify and be prepared to use cover and concealment.
5. If something seems "wrong" it often is.
6. If you have to respond to a situation with deadly force, do so without hesitation and until the threat(s) is neutralized.

7. Nothing good can come from hanging out in front of a convenience store in a sketchy neighborhood at 9 at night.

 

[Sam1911]

With great respect, Deanimator,

1. Be aware of your environment and others in it.
2. ALWAYS go armed where lawful to do so.
3. Carry your firearm in a manner and condition conducive to safe, effective and immediate use.
4. Identify and be prepared to use cover and concealment.
5. If something seems "wrong" it often is.
6. If you have to respond to a situation with deadly force, do so without hesitation and until the threat(s) is neutralized.

While your statements are valid and valuable advice for every one of us...

Not every contact with a criminal is a "gun" problem with a "gun" solution.

Mr. Taylor's failures in this instance really had nothing to do with whether he was armed or not, or with his willingness to use force to defend himself or his wife.

He had LOST this confrontation from his first action towards the thief. When he pushed this thief out of petty thievery into felony territory, he had FAILED. Anything further he did or could have done was merely reaction to regain lost ground (his own safety and that of his wife and others).

Mr Taylor did not need a gun to survive this situation. He needed his wits, his street smarts, his brain engaged. And those failed him that day.

-Sam

 

[camslam]

Follow up to first report...

Here is the update on the story, looks like the shooter is a documented gang member, but not much new in the details of the case. As mentioned before, be aware, be prepared, and make smart decisions, because you never know how unhinged an individual may be when you confront, approach, or reprimand them.

http://www.azcentral.com/community/.../20100222phx-shooter-identified-abrk0222.html

Gunman in beer-run killing ID'd, still at large
by Jessica Testa and Jeffery Javier - Feb. 22, 2010 11:57 AM
The Arizona Republic .
Authorities have identified a man suspected of shooting a husband in front of his wife and his mother outside a Circle K.

Manuel Salazar III, 20, who Phoenix police say is a documented gang member in west Phoenix, remains at large. Authorities on Monday say they believe he is in hiding after shooting and killing Lance Taylor, 23, at the convenience store near 43rd Avenue and McDowell Road on Friday night.


A felony warrant for first-degree murder has been issued for Salazar.

Salazar was identified after images captured on the store's surveillance camera were released to the media, resulting in tips from the public, Phoenix police spokesman Sgt. Trent Crump said.

Police say the shooter was attempting to steal two 30-packs of beer from the store when Taylor tried to stop him. Taylor confronted the man because he knew the employees there and wanted to help, Crump said.

The man apparently listened to Taylor and returned the beer, but as he walked toward the exit, he pulled a handgun from his waistband and started waving it and yelling at Taylor and the store employees.

As the gunman left the store, he saw Taylor's wife, who was opening the door. He said something to the woman, then hit her in the head with his pistol, police said.

Taylor came up behind the man and was shot in front of his wife and mother. He died at St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix. Taylor's wife suffered a minor head injury.

Crump said the shooter either fled east on McDowell Road or got into a brown, two-door Chevrolet Malibu.

 

[benEzra]

If our entire society depends on a select few law enforcement to safeguard our values and lives, then we are indeed headed for trouble.

If our society gets to the point where good men will not stand up for what is right, then all is lost. I fear we have lost sight of the founding principles of this country, which were rooted in freedom, justice, and common sense, that we are now continuing the rapid descent to a morally and financially bankrupt society. As I mentioned before, everyone must choose for themselves when and how to act, but when the majority of society doesn't care, won't fight for, and doesn't defend correct values and principles, we are in trouble.

For some a pack of beer, cigarettes, car, food, bike, are not worth a fight or even death. For some both the articles mentioned and the principle of right vs wrong, make it worth taking action. Where does a person draw the line and say enough is enough? Every person must decide for themselves, the important thing is to be able to look yourself in the mirror and be comfortable with your action or inaction.

One of the lessons we might learn from this is that if you ARE going to take action, there are courses of action that would likely have been simultaneously more effective and far less risky.

For example, had he quickly stepped aside and given the thief a wide berth to exit the store, then discreetly observed the vehicle he got into and noted the plate number, he could arguably have helped the store and the community without putting himself or his family in danger. His good look at the guy + plate number and car description would have indeed been doing something constructive. If he could have stepped partially inside the store while doing so, so much the better.

It's not an either/or between (1) acting at great peril to yourself and your family and (2) turning a blind eye to the situation and letting the bad guys triumph unopposed. There may be a whole spectrum of choices by which you might do some social good at a low level of risk. Going mano a mano against an armed 25-year-old sociopath bodybuilder is certainly one possible option, but will rarely be the only one.

Of course, if this weren't a simple theft, but a case of "bad guy comes in shooting", then one might have to act even if unarmed, simply because the alternatives are worse. In this case, though, it appears that there were safer actions available at several points in the timeline that would have still made a positive difference.

 

[camslam]

+1 benEzra.

I don't think there is any question that this could have and should have been handled differently.

For those of us that do carry weapons, these events, these questions, these results are what shape the future actions/reactions we may take at some point in our life.

Excellent points explaining the balance between making a positive contribution to society versus losing your life in a situation you were unprepared to deal with, which I believe most everyone would agree with.

 

[Fred Fuller]

How to be a good witness...

http://www.corneredcat.com/Practical/witness.aspx

http://crime.suite101.com/article.cfm/witnessing_a_crime

http://www.desotomssheriff.com/resources/faq/good-witness/

http://www.corneliuspd.org/index.ph...article&id=135:crime-solving&catid=31:general

http://www.behindtheblueline.ca/blog/blueline/2008/12/22/how-to-be-a-good-witness-part-one/

http://www.behindtheblueline.ca/blog/blueline/2008/12/23/how-to-be-a-good-witness-part-two/

etc.

lpl

 

[Deanimator]

When he pushed this thief out of petty thievery into felony territory, he had FAILED.

The above is some serious fail.

Regardless of whether what the deceased did was a good idea or not, NOBODY "pushed" the murderer into ANYTHING. The ENTIRE affair was the murderer's fault and NOBODY else's.

 

[Sam1911]

The above is some serious fail.

Regardless of whether what the deceased did was a good idea or not, NOBODY "pushed" the murderer into ANYTHING. The ENTIRE affair was the murderer's fault and NOBODY else's.

Sure, sure. No one would say that the murder is not GUILTY of his crimes. He bears the ultimate responsibility for the whole sad affair.

But to ignore that Mr. Taylor would have almost unquestionably gone home unharmed had he not inserted himself into the situation and changed the course of events is willful blindness. While Mr. Taylor cannot be thought GUILTY of anything, in the end he did tip the course of events that ended in his death.

Every year, folks make the choice to hike and camp in bear country and place their food in their tents when they sleep. Some folks die because of that action. The bear is still responsible for their death, and only the most hardened of us would consider the campers "responsible" for their deaths, but unquestionably they could have chosen a path that would greatly have improved their life expectancy.

Violent criminals live and work among us. Ignoring questions of "nature vs. nurture" and the origins of criminal behavior, it's best to simply accept that they are, and will always be, present -- like the bears in the forest. Their actions are not lawful and are unjust, but those people act and react to various stimuli in ways that can often be logical and predictable, if not "right." When facing a criminal actor, the actions of the innocent parties and/or victims may significantly affect the outcome of the altercation. It is clearly possible to choose a just and lawful course of action and wind up bleeding out on the sidewalk.

------

As an aside, it would be very interesting to watch a trial play out had the situation gone differently. Say Mr. Taylor had intervened, and the thief had returned the beer and come out brandishing his weapon, but in this scenario Mr. Taylor had drawn a weapon of his own and opened fire -- assuming rightly that his life was being threatened. How would a trial play out if he killed the thief? How would the trial, AND the CIVIL trial afterward, have played out if bystanders were injured or killed (by either shooter)? Would a jury find that Mr. Taylor had escalated the situation to the detriment of the injured parties? (I know such outcomes would strongly depend on the laws of that jurisdiction, and I am not familiar with them.)

After all... if he'd have stepped aside and simply acted as a good witness, everyone would have made it home safely that day.

-Sam

 

[Zoogster]

The problem here was not the stopping of the theft, which can result in harm. Stopping crime is always dangerous.


There is not enough details in the story to know what happened. Only to lead to the assumption of what we think happened.
We are led to believe someone was initially going to steal, but then does not, and complies after being confronted. But then the guy that complied escalates the situation and things turn deadly.
What words took place. What words from Taylor, from the shooter, from the store employee?

A guy complied and then out of the blue pulls a pistol after complying and becomes dangerous? Why would he have waited and not been dangerous initially?
Something may be missing from the story at this point. In many of these types of stories if the victim did do something wrong it is omitted to keep sympathy high and help lead to the capture of the killer. Keep it good vs bad, and as simple as possible to gain maximum public support.

Was the wife struck and then the shooter continued on his way before being confronted a few moments later by the husband? Or was the shooter still engaged in the conflict with the wife after striking her?
So was it to stop something still in the process, or to confront someone who greatly angered him by striking his wife but was in the process of fleeing?

Also what was the guy yelling when he took out his gun and was waving it? The media is not always clear. Was the guy in fear of Taylor? After putting the beer back was Taylor still being intimidating or bullying the man in a way that caused him to feel trapped or be in fear? Was he trying to detain him?
Did he pull out the gun at this point and this is the :

The man did what he was told and as he was leaving he took a handgun from his waistband and started waving it and yelling at store employees and Taylor. Taylor backed away from the man

Was Taylor not backed away and bullying him before he took out the firearm, but after he put the beer back? Was the man in fear of a much larger Taylor and was using the gun to escape yelling things like "let me go"?
Did the wife not know what was going on, or did she come to assist her husband in bullying a man or detaining him by blocking his path or holding the door closed?
Did she go up to block his path at the door after seeing the earlier problem through the glass storefront (most of those types of places have a glass storefront) with her husband and not realize he had a gun in his hand at that point? Or was she totally naive as we are left to assume and just happened by coincidence to reach the door at the same time the other guy was leaving, after the prior events took place?


None of this is clear, and while it may not change the resulting crime or the attempted crime if that is what it was, it could paint a different picture.

 

[alohachris]

A guy complied and then out of the blue pulls a pistol after complying and becomes dangerous? Why would he have waited and not been dangerous initially?

Simple. Mr. Taylor tipped over one of the most dangerous things in the world, the dignity domino. Mr. Salazar was 'disrespected' and that upped the ante for him.

 

[Zoogster]

Simple. Mr. Taylor tipped over one of the most dangerous things in the world, the dignity domino. Mr. Salazar was 'disrespected' and that upped the ante for him.

Well clearly you have some more follow-up information I missed if you have his name.
If he is in custody now more details might come out.

Still, why was it not Taylor who was struck or attacked? I doubt "Salazar" would have realized it was his wife if she had not been involved prior to coming to the store door as "Salazar" was leaving.
So he is "disrespected" and then strikes someone uninvolved that he probably has no idea is connected to Mr. Taylor?

Clearly there is some missing information. Like what was said and how things escalated between compliance and pulling the gun or striking his wife.
The story we have in the OP's post is clearly missing some steps in the process.


I have seen a trend in the press, even in mutual combat situations with an escaped suspect to paint the victim as a saint or who did nothing wrong at all.
We had a young man that challenged some guy to a fight out here awhile back, and while fighting fell down and struck his head on the concrete, killing him. For over a year in the media it sounded like some poor guy just doing his own thing ran into the wrong people and was attacked and killed. Not until after a trial and conviction did it even make it to the press that it was a mutual fist fight that the victim had actually planned. Placing a call challenging the 'killer' to a fight beforehand.
Because it was a mutual fight he was still guilty of killing him under the law, but it was nothing like the press had given the impression it was for so long.

There is many similar situations. In fact if you actually know details of something that ends up in the media you will realize how far off the media is on most things. It makes you question things you have no inside information on.
I think most cops will be familiar with this. What happened and what is reported are often so different they only resemble one another in a couple of key facts and events. Often the more details the press adds the more they get wrong. Yet the reporting is always so matter of fact, like it is 100% unquestionable.

So I have no inclination to take this story at face value, especially when the victim had great reason to be upset with the shooter after he struck his wife. For all we know in the OP's story Taylor ran over and attacked "Salazar" who was walking away after striking Taylor's wife. And then Taylor was shot.
It would not change the crimes committed or the fact that "Salazar" needs to be off the street, but would be very different than the OP's post.

 

[OldCavSoldier]

"Courageous" is in the eye of the be(er)holder. (LOL! What a pun!)

He didn't die saving a child from a burning building. He didn't die in glorious service to his country. He didn't die defending his loved ones.

He died (and nearly got his wife killed) because he was defending someone else's business against a VERY petty theft. (How much does beer, of the low sort that comes in 30-packs, cost per pack? At most $20 total?)

This MAN was a fool, and paid the ultimate price to prove it.

Do you think his wife and mother laud his choice, praise his "courage?" They will bear the loss of his love and fiscal support for the rest of their lives.

Unless he really had NOTHING to live for, this was a poor thing to DIE for.

The FIRST rule is to survive to be there for those that love and need you. There really is no second rule...

-Sam

First rule: don't do a gunfight unless you absolutely must
Second rule: bring a gun to the gunfight
Third rule: win the gunfight
Fourth rule: see the third rule

 

[Mr.Davis]

I draw several lessons from this article:

1) Situational awareness. The wife attempted to enter a gas station in which a physical altercation had just taken place AND a man was visibly waving around a gun. Clearly, she was not paying attention to what was going on in there and walked into a deadly situation before she knew it.

2) When criminals act in an incredibly brazen fashion (such as just walking out with highly visible stolen merchandise), they usually have a reason. In this case, the criminal was armed and willing to kill, which drove his confrontational and seemingly irrational behavior.

3) When observing such a brazen criminal, it is not advisable to get involved unless someone's life is in immediate jeopardy. In a simple property theft case like this one, the criminal either arrived on foot or in a car. If on foot, the police should be able to easily detain him. If in a car, being a good witness would almost assuredly lead to a similar result.​

In cases like this, it is very possible to act without directly intervening. Don't insert yourself into a situation unless someone's life is on the line. Be a good witness if all that's at risk is property and pride.