Armed Citizen Stops "Crime Spree"

[Kleanbore]

That being said, I think attempting to approach the issue of strategy in regards to legal defense with a firearm, in a manner that applies to a world-wide audience, to be a fool's errand

We don't ty. We address the fifty states, DC. and all US possessions and territories.

"With a firearm"? Hey--these laws apply to blades, bats, golf clubs, screw drivers...

Finally, IMHO, the very act of accepting the current legal environment (in whatever place that may be) is a losing strategy.

"Accepting the 'current legal environment' "? The rules of the road regarding the use of deadly force have remained essentially the same for over nine hundred years, except for the duty to retreat and the fleeing felon rule.

And except in the minds who have seen too much screen fiction.

 

[bearcreek]

This isn't the legal forum, if you look at the top and bottom of the page you will see that you are in the Strategies Tactics and Training Forum. We try to keep the discussion focused on the things that are legal everywhere.

No we don't. The laws (and how and who enforces them) in a given area can be and often are extremely varied, which means that TTP's often must vary. We discuss those variances regularly.

I didn't realize there was a video. It's not showing up for me for some reason. (probably my add blocker). Doesn't matter though. I trust no one or organization that I don't know personally, and so it's not possible for this dude to be my "hero" as you put it. My comments were directed towards the general subject, not this specific case.

 

[Terry Vincent]

To the moderators: What response would you have taken knowing the totality of the circumstances as the citizen had at the time he intervened?

 

[Terry Vincent]

Expanded interrogatory for the mods: What response would you initiate if the victim with the knife at their throat was a very close, life-long friend rather than an unknown citizen?

 

[MEHavey]

I would be surprised at any answer to the question above other than:
"It depends...."

 

[Kleanbore]

To the moderators: What response would you have taken knowing the totality of the circumstances as the citizen had at the time he intervened?

Had I be=een thinking clearly, I would have gotten out of the way and let the robber leave.

Expanded interrogatory for the mods: What response would you initiate if the victim with the knife at their throat was a very close, life-long friend rather than an unknown citizen?

Same thing.

It was over. The victim was no longer in danger. The man was leaving.

The prosecution would only need to prove that the defendant had failed to meet any one of the requirements for a legal defense.

At trial, the robber would be the "victim". The armed citizen would be "the defendant".

It appears to me that the prosecutor did not enforce the law. That is a bad thing. We expect him to do so.

Can't say that I'm sorry, in this case.

 

[Jeff White]

To the moderators: What response would you have taken knowing the totality of the circumstances as the citizen had at the time he intervened?

Anyone who watched the video knows the totality of the circumstances. The shooter pays for his purchase and leaves the store. He watches the armed robber enter the store, take the clerk up to the counter and force the clerk to open the cash register. The shooter stands in the door and challenges the armed robber verbally. The armed robber attempts to get away from the shooter after saying “I’ve got something here for you” which we can assume the shooter took as a threat. The armed robber moved around the shelves as the shooter fired at him the final round was fired in the direction of the clerk.

What else happened that we need to take into consideration?

Expanded interrogatory for the mods: What response would you initiate if the victim with the knife at their throat was a very close, life-long friend rather than an unknown citizen?

That wasn’t the situation, was it. We can play what if games till the cow comes home but in the end, that wasn’t the situation we are discussing.

 

[Terry Vincent]

For the Mods, again. OK, the video’s release contradicts the original record. However, given the original incorrect presentation where the clerk was supposedly in imminent danger of death with the knife at her throat, please tell us what tactics you would employ.

 

[Kleanbore]

....given the original incorrect presentation where the clerk was supposedly in imminent danger of death with the knife at her throat, please tell us what tactics you would employ.

Useless speculation.

 

[Terry Vincent]

Kleanbore, in order for you to get out of the way, you must be at the threshold. Tell us what you would do if you saw the robber stab the clerk and advance towards the exit you are blocking.

 

[Kleanbore]

. Tell us what you would do if you saw the robber stab the clerk and advance towards the exit you are blocking.

I would not be entitled to do anything.

Understand?

 

[Terry Vincent]

I just looked at the bottom of this page and discovered the headline: STRATEGIES, TACTICS, AND TRAINING. For the Mods: Do the training courses you have attended discuss hypothetical scenarios, hands-on shoot-don’t shoot vignettes, and live fire training situations? I’m really curious what tactic you would employ if you saw the victim severely injured and the suspect was advancing towards you.

 

[Terry Vincent]

Ok, Kleanbore. “Not be entitled to do anything,” says a lot about you and how you see no value for you in other citizens’ lives, and it would mean nothing to you if they were dead.

 

[Jeff White]

However, given the original incorrect presentation where the clerk was supposedly in imminent danger of death with the knife at her throat, please tell us what tactics you would employ.

First off, that’s not what happened. So it’s completely immaterial to this discussion.

Secondly, you’re free to start a new thread on that scenario if you want. But it’s not germane to the discussion of this incident.

I just looked at the bottom of this page and discovered the headline: STRATEGIES, TACTICS, AND TRAINING. For the Mods: Do the training courses you have attended discuss hypothetical scenarios, hands-on shoot-don’t shoot vignettes, and live fire training situations? I’m really curious what tactic you would employ if you saw the victim severely injured and the suspect was advancing towards you.

We aren’t talking about a hypothetical scenario, we’re talking about a real live scenario that actually happened.

 

[JTHunter]

The police would not have charged into that convenience store. They would have waited outside and attempted an arrest when the robber left. There are very sound tactical reasons for that response.

Like the various police agencies waited around for 70 minutes in Uvalde? Like those kids and teachers, the clerk might have been dead by then.
Yes, the "hero's" actions could be considered "imprudent" but he just might have saved that clerk's life PLUS he was able to stop an ongoing crime spree.
Not a desirable scenario but sounds like a good outcome anyway.

 

[Kleanbore]

but he just might have saved that clerk's life

She was no longer in danger.

PLUS he was able to stop an ongoing crime spree.

Certainly not germane fo justification.

 

[Jeff White]

Like the various police agencies waited around for 70 minutes in Uvalde? Like those kids and teachers, the clerk might have been dead by then.

So the failure at Uvalde is reason enough to take the law into your own hands and rush in? I wonder how that defense will work at trial?

Yes, the "hero's" actions could be considered "imprudent" but he just might have saved that clerk's life

It’s clear from the video that he didn’t save the clerk’s life and in fact acted with wanton disregard for her life by firing in her direction.

PLUS he was able to stop an ongoing crime spree.
Not a desirable scenario but sounds like a good outcome anyway.

Unintended consequence. He had no way of knowing he stopped a crime spree.

 

[Kleanbore]

t’s clear from the video that he didn’t save the clerk’s life and in fact acted with wanton disregard for her life by firing in her direction.

Key point.

He had no way of knowing he stopped a crime spree.

That is very important in law.

 

[Mosin77]

First off, that’s not what happened. So it’s completely immaterial to this discussion.

Secondly, you’re free to start a new thread on that scenario if you want. But it’s not germane to the discussion of this incident.



We aren’t talking about a hypothetical scenario, we’re talking about a real live scenario that actually happened.

To be fair, when this thread was first started, before we had the video and more complete information about what happened, there was a certain scenario that was understood. And some posters were very outspoken that the conduct understood to have taken place, given that scenario, was wrong, foolish, inadvisable legally, or inadvisable tactically. So I think it’s a fair question to ask those posters what they would have done in the place of the shooter/would-be-rescuer, assuming the original scenario was true. I don’t see how it’s not germane to the thread. Kleanbore and Jeff White, if you left a convenience store at night, possessed a firearm in your vehicle, and saw another individual enter the store, and put a knife to the cashier’s throat, what would you A) likely do in those circumstances, B) advise us to do (in your own sole opinions.)

I understand that now a different picture has emerged and I agree, it’s fortunate for the hero that he is in Missouri and not Silicon Valley or NYC. I would unabashedly say it was a good outcome -criminal scum in the ground, good citizen not charged- but it’s definitely not as clear cut now. There is a societal gray area (so to speak) about when deadly force is justified to protect property and who may use it.

I’m getting the distinct impression that this area of THR could be basically renamed as “Jeff White and Kleanbore educate everyone on legal ramifications of firearms use in service to the common good.” And there’s nothing wrong with that, you two clearly know your stuff and have valuable lessons to teach, no doubt derived from decades of practical experience either of police work or law. But analyzing every bullet as if it had a lawyer attached to it is not always necessarily in the service of the common good, in the moment. (It’s fine and necessary for Monday morning quarterbacking after the fact. Because a lawyer will doubtless be more thorough than people on a forum.) I think if you two are going to offer such strong opinions that fly in the face of what a lot of civilians would reflexively consider good or praiseworthy conduct, it’s only reasonable to expect others to object, and to bear those objections patiently. I think in general this is the case.

 

[Jeff White]

To be fair, when this thread was first started, before we had the video and more complete information about what happened, there was a certain scenario that was understood. And some posters were very outspoken that the conduct understood to have taken place, given that scenario, was wrong, foolish, inadvisable legally, or inadvisable tactically.

The initial reporting of situations like this is often completely wrong as the release of the video has revealed. Even if it happened the way it was originally reported, the response would have been ill advised and tactically unsound.

if you left a convenience store at night, possessed a firearm in your vehicle, and saw another individual enter the store, and put a knife to the cashier’s throat, what would you A) likely do in those circumstances, B) advise us to do (in your own sole opinions.)

First off, I don’t leave a firearm in my vehicle. I know that many concealed carriers only get a permit so they can have a firearm in their vehicle, but when you need it, you need it on you, it’s not good form to ask your assailant to wait while you went to your vehicle to arm yourself.

Secondly, I would do just as I advocated even if I wasn’t retired. Call 911, set up in a covered position and wait for the armed robber to exit the store. That response has been tested in actual robberies thousands of times and has been proven to be the best option.

it’s fortunate for the hero that he is in Missouri and not Silicon Valley or NYC.

It’s fortunate he wasn’t on the other side of the Missouri River in St Louis County or St Louis City. Both the city and county have Soros prosecutors who continually rail against Missouri’s gun laws and this would have been the perfect case for them to make political points with using the old lie that allowing private citizens to carry guns leads to vigilantism. If you read the article that I linked with the video you will find a reference to the fact the armed robber was a college athlete. In a previous article on the decision of the St Charles prosecutor’s decision not to press charges the Post Dispatch felt it necessary to publish a photo of the medals the armed robber earned in his youth sports career.

I think if you two are going to offer such strong opinions that fly in the face of what a lot of civilians would reflexively consider good or praiseworthy conduct, it’s only reasonable to expect others to object, and to bear those objections patiently.

I really wish the world was as clearly black and white as a Western movie but, it’s not. Don’t think for a minute that I don’t think it’s a good thing when a bad person is removed from society. But my opinion, your opinion or anyone else’s doesn’t matter. What matters is the system’s opinion.

It’s not unusual for someone who chooses to carry a gun to fantasize about standing in line at the bank or the convenience store when the bad guys come in and using that gun to save the day. I did when I started, every rookie cop I ever knew did, so I understand that private citizens who carry do also. But, there is one huge difference. The rookie cop soon has enough exposure to violence and the legal system to put all those romantic ideas out of their head. The average armed citizen is never exposed to that. And I hope they never are.

 

[Blue Jays]

The store robber holding a knife and simultaneously saying, "Come here, I have something for you…" is probably the most fortuitous thing that could have been said to the armed bystander who then engaged.

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

In nearby Princeton, NJ a few years ago a cop shot a gunman holding a hostage in a bank. What was he supposed to do-call 911 ?

 

[Jeff White]

In nearby Princeton, NJ a few years ago a cop shot a gunman holding a hostage in a bank. What was he supposed to do-call 911 ?

First off, there was no hostage. Secondly, the cop had a duty to act. A carry permit is not a peace officer's commission. Police departments are struggling to hire nationwide. If you want to fight crime and/or evil sign up.

There is absolutely no similarity between "a cop shooting a gunman holding a hostage in a bank a few years ago in Princeton NJ" and what the shooter here did.

 

[Kleanbore]

I strongly urge everyone to read Jeff's Post #70 line by line, read it again, and think very carefully about each paragraph.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Reopened for additional discussion after the video was released
Video has been released and (surprise, surprise!) the incident didn't come down the way it was reported in the media.
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local...cle_431cfceb-5292-5c81-ac36-26df32a068b1.html

The armed robber was no longer threatening the clerk and was on his way out of the store when the "hero" citizen gunned him down. I watched the video several times and I don't see Bush charge the armed citizen. The attack on the clerk was over before the armed citizen entered the store and the robbery was over and the armed robber was making his escape. While no charges were filed in this case it could very easily have gone the other way. There are a lot of things that go into a charging decision and this might not have had a good outcome for the armed citizen in another jurisdiction.

The article states

Bush runs from behind the counter and in the direction of the bystander, and the bystander raises the gun and points it at Bush. As Bush ducks behind an aisle, heading closer to the bystander, Bush has a backpack in his hand and says, “I got something for you.”

The bystander then fires four shots at Bush.
​

If that description is accurate, wouldn't Bush "charging at" the bystander, known to be in possession of a knife, and threatening with the backpack be sufficient grounds for a self-defense claim?

I agree with your statement that in the video you don't see Bush "charging" the bystander, but given that we can't actually see everything he does, it's possible that if there were video from another camera positioned elsewhere in the store we might have seen that.

I disagree with your statement that the clerk was no longer in danger, Bush was still standing right next to her, presumably with the knife still out (I don't see well enough to ever see the knife in the video), bystander had no way to know what Bush would do next. We always think if we give BG the money he will go away, but that doesn't always happen, sometimes they think they have to kill the victim to avoid being identified when caught by police.

I agree with your comment (maybe in a different post here) that it was scary to see him shooting at Bush when Bush was between him and the clerk, very good that the clerk hit the floor.

Also, I wouldn't say the bystander exactly "challenged" Bush... at least his first statement to him was not said in a challenging manner. Only when he said "we're not doing this" did he present a "challenge".

So, my $0.02.