Armed standoff between West Palm Beach customer, store workers ends in arrest

[Soybomb]

Which should hammer home the point all the more: don't yell at people who are acting erratically.

This whole situation reminds me of a poster who said he couldn't walk too well (also in a supermarket?) and said to a young punk, "You're blocking the aisle!" instead of, "Excuse me, sir, can I get by?" The punk became irate (absolutely out of proportion to the rudeness, yes) and in the end, the man was forced to draw on him.

Would the use of lethal force be justified in such a situation, if threatened? Yes. But is it far more prudent and desirable to be able to avoid such situations before they start, merely by using a little common courtesy and humility on one's own part? Oh, yes.

Great post. For all the posts I read with people worrying about legal troubles after a self defense shooting, you would think more THR members would do what they can to avoid confrontation in the first place even if it means being the person to back down or being far more polite than the other person deserves. Avoiding a situation where guns are required should always be the goal even if you can shoot back.

 

[romma]

As long as no one asks who the Beatles were

Who?

 

[gym]

I hear he's been selling his ammo along with his prescription medication, to buy food. Sucks getting old. Me I'm getting a walker with 2 twelve gauge barrells for legs. I think i'll call it Walker Texas Ranger

 

[TwitchALot]

Sans Authoritas:
Enough of your tripe!
Your constant propensity to argue in favor of BG's and demean other's on this board that do not agree with your viewpoint has earned you the distict recognition as the lone THR member on my ignore list.
Congratulations.
You earned it.
Poper

What "tripe" are you talking about? Certainly not this, I hope: "Mak, there's no doubt the guy who pulled out a pistol is totally out of line, and is the far more grievous offender. But do you not admit that this whole situation might have been totally avoided if the store owner had a little tact and civility, and had not yelled at someone for going through automatic doors the wrong way?"

I completely agree with Sans. This was a shooting over essentially, the way someone walked in a door. This was probably a shooting that could have, and should have, been avoided. What's wrong with that?

 

[romma]

Great post. For all the posts I read with people worrying about legal troubles after a self defense shooting, you would think more THR members would do what they can to avoid confrontation in the first place even if it means being the person to back down or being far more polite than the other person deserves. Avoiding a situation where guns are required should always be the goal even if you can shoot back.

Well, back in the day, long before I carried, I worked in a convienence store in a bad part of town, and full of a lot of bad people.

You needed to repel a lot of the crap and antics with an aggressive front, or you would be overrun with more problems than you would ever know you could have.

Again, perhaps there was a track record with this particular customer that we do not know about.?

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Romma wrote:

Again, perhaps there was a track record with this particular customer that we do not know about?

Romma, it's definitely a possibility.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[Sage of Seattle]

I completely agree with Sans. This was a shooting over essentially, the way someone walked in a door. This was probably a shooting that could have, and should have, been avoided. What's wrong with that?

Absolutely nothing.

However, as we've all seen, even doing "everything right" can still get you killed and/or shot at. So, the manager in this case shouldn't have yelled, if he did, but he certainly did what he was entitled to do -- which was tell an unruly customer to leave the property.

My guess is that the yelling didn't actually start until AFTER the old guy started arguing about "getting hassled" when he walked into the store.

All down the line, it was the old guy escalating the encounter until he finally pulled his illegally carried pistol to do what -- prove his point? Kill the manager perhaps? Show the world he wasn't gonna get pushed around anymore?

In fact, I just got told off about ten minutes ago after politely inquiring about a job application I had faxed yesterday. (I just hope, for that business' sake, that I'm going to be replacing that nasty woman at the front desk! ) Should all business people be polite? Of course.

But it takes two to do the gunfight tango...

 

[Sans Authoritas]

And Mak, if you felt demeaned as a result of anything I said, I do apologize. It was not and would not be my intention to demean anyone.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[hill billy]

I did note in the end of the article that the store had been robbed several times. Perhaps enforcing entry and exit was one way of keeping tabs on the rabble. This would have caused the managers, et al, to be at a higher state of alert or stress.

 

[AndyC]

I have a question...

If it's an automatic door, how can one possibly walk through it from the wrong side? Why would one have a sensor on the "wrong side" in the first place?

 

[cedjunior]

What I don't understand is, why do some people think that once you start carrying a weapon you can no longer do or say anything that contradicts another human being ever again for fear of starting a confrontation? These managers worked at the store, they're doing their fricking job!

The grocery store I frequent, a Kroger here in Irving, had 2 sets of interior automatic doors. One says ENTRANCE and leads to the open part of the front of the store, the other door says EXIT ONLY and leads to the area behind the cashiers where there is nowhere to go except through the cashier lines to get through the store. I'd guess the employees of that store wouldn't wane everyone to start going in that way instead of the door clearly marked ENTRANCE. Just a little example to throw out there for those who always have to question "why?'

 

[Steve N]

Please also post text of article along with link.


Armed standoff between West Palm Beach customer, store workers ends in arrest
By Jerome Burdi | South Florida Sun-Sentinel
10:55 AM EDT, April 29, 2008
Article tools
E-mail Share
Digg Del.icio.us Facebook Fark Google Newsvine Reddit Yahoo Print Reprints Post comment Text size: WEST PALM BEACH - Memo to shoppers: Next time Mr. Whipple tells you to stop squeezing the Charmin, pay attention. He might be packing heat.

A West Palm Beach man pulled out a gun in an argument with two supermarket managers, who then whipped out their own guns, police said Tuesday.

The man fired into the store and at one of the managers, but no one was injured, police said.

Marshall Grant, 72, is charged with attempted murder, shooting in an occupied building, aggravated assault and carrying a concealed firearm in connection with the 5 p.m. Monday incident at the IGA Supermarket at 1000 36th St.



Related links
'Don't fire your weapon, sir.' Audio
'I was trying to get outside with my kids.' Audio
'I see a guy here waving a gun.' Audio
Crime & Safety: Find predators, see latest reports and tips
Supermarket standoff

Marshall Grant, 72, is charged with attempted murder, shooting in an occupied building, aggravated assault and carrying a concealed firearm. (Photo courtesy of PBSO)

Police said the problem started when store manager Marino Hernandez shouted at Grant that he was walking into the store through the wrong doors.

The men got into an argument, and when Hernandez told Grant he should take his business elsewhere, Grant pulled out a revolver, police said.

An assistant manager, Roberto Espinal pulled out his gun and pointed it at Grant, police said.

As Grant backed out of the store, Hernandez also pulled a gun, police said.

Grant fired three shots into the store, which had several customers inside, according to authorities.

Hernandez yelled at Grant to drop the gun.

Instead, Grant got behind a car and pointed his gun. He shot again, this time at Hernandez, police said.

Hernandez did not return fire, police said.

The two managers got on either side of Grant and told him to drop the gun because police were on their way. He did.

"They have a right to protect their business and themselves," police Capt. Pat Maney said. "They showed great restraint by not firing back ... That store has been robbed several times."

 

[nplant]

cedjunior -

I don't know about other folks, but in my opinion, the whole reason for carrying a gun is to hedge my bets that I'll make it home safely. So for my perspective, why would I engage in rude or confrontational behavior that could escalate emotions over something that isn't a big deal? Pride can take a back seat in my car - I'd rather walk away from something minor and de-escalate a bad situation. If that's what you consider "no longer say[ing] anything that contradicts another human being ever again for fear of starting a confrontation," so be it. I can live with that.

Now, that said, there are times to put one's foot down. This situation may have been one of those times, but again, we don't know one way or the other, having not been present at the time. The article makes the shooter appear to be not all there upstairs. Even if it started as an innocent misunderstanding on the shooter's part, to retreat outdoors, take cover, and continue firing says to me that this guy was nuts. I suspect that there was no way around this particular situation.

 

[Poper]

TwichAlot - Please, no offense intended.

I found SA's three posts prior to my post very condescending to the OP and Mak. SA has no more information than the rest of us, yet he assumes the "yelling" started the confrontation. (Obviously that is incorrect as the storekeeper yelled at the offender for not using the proper door.)
He then tells us what should/could/would have taken place if.... Yet all turned out well in the end regardless. Any independent thinker can imagine twice as many justifications for the reactions of the storekeeper.
SA's 3 posts were typical of his historical posts:
1) Take the BG's side by default,
2) do so in a condescending manner,
3) make every effort to get in the last word.

From now on I will not read SA's posts. I do not find his reasoning interesting nor of value. JMHO, FWIW. There may be others that feel the same towards me. If so, please let me know. I will endeavor to do better on The High Road.


I apologize if my post(s) offend(ed) any THR members. It is (was) not my intent.

Respectfully,
Poper

 

[misANTHrope]

I have a question...

If it's an automatic door, how can one possibly walk through it from the wrong side? Why would one have a sensor on the "wrong side" in the first place?

There are several ways to get around this. Back when I worked at Dick's, we had a "one-way" setup like this in place. The idea was that people leaving the store would have to walk by the cashiers, to help prevent theft. Of course, the smarter thieves would just work in teams. One would take the merchandise and mil around by the entrance door, while the other would go out the real exit and then walk close enough to the entrance door to trip the sensor.. and the first guy walks right out the entrance.

And you really didn't even have to do that. We employees regularly had to step outside to load a safe or some such, and we didn't feel like going around the cashier lines But all you have to do is grab the sliding doors and pull them open a little bit, and that trips the mechanism to open them the rest of the way.

In short, it's easy to go "in" through "out" doors.

 

[jaholder1971]

I found SA's three posts prior to my post very condescending to the OP and Mak. SA has no more information than the rest of us, yet he assumes the "yelling" started the confrontation. (Obviously that is incorrect as the storekeeper yelled at the offender for not using the proper door.)
He then tells us what should/could/would have taken place if.... Yet all turned out well in the end regardless. Any independent thinker can imagine twice as many justifications for the reactions of the storekeeper.
SA's 3 posts were typical of his historical posts:
1) Take the BG's side by default,
2) do so in a condescending manner,
3) make every effort to get in the last word.

From now on I will not read SA's posts. I do not find his reasoning interesting nor of value. JMHO, FWIW. There may be others that feel the same towards me. If so, please let me know. I will endeavor to do better on The High Road.


I apologize if my post(s) offend(ed) any THR members. It is (was) not my intent.

Respectfully,
Poper

You got the guy pegged. No worries.

 

[TwitchALot]

I found SA's three posts prior to my post very condescending to the OP and Mak. SA has no more information than the rest of us, yet he assumes the "yelling" started the confrontation. (Obviously that is incorrect as the storekeeper yelled at the offender for not using the proper door.)

I'm not sure how you construed SA's posts to be condescending at all, let alone, "very condescending." If you actually read what he said, SA did not insult anyone and brought up a very important point- avoid confrontation when you can. With the information we have (inadequate as it is), this confrontation may have very well been avoided with a, "excuse me sir, could you please use the proper door for entering next time." This is what I think, and what I think SA thinks, should have been done. Neither of us are making excuses for the BG and his actions nor are we defending him. But with what we know, the situation could have been handled much better, and it probably would not have ended with shots fired if it had been.

He then tells us what should/could/would have taken place if.... Yet all turned out well in the end regardless. Any independent thinker can imagine twice as many justifications for the reactions of the storekeeper.
SA's 3 posts were typical of his historical posts:
1) Take the BG's side by default,
2) do so in a condescending manner,
3) make every effort to get in the last word.

SA did not "take the BG's side by default." He, and I, both condemn the actions of the BG. The BG is completely responsible for his actions and for drawing upon and firing at the managers, no question about it. Sans said so himself. But could this situation have been handled differently such that shots wouldn't need to be fired? We both think so.

None of us have all of the facts or all the information, but using the same report, both sides messed up, and lead to shots being fired in a market (not exactly an ideal place for a gunfight, if there is any). If he was "very condescending" as you say, I'd like you point out exactly what was so condescending. I saw nothing offensive and a rather important point regarding how someone should behave toward others- respectfully. And quite frankly, as it applies on THR and in the real world, if people dealt with each other respectfully at all times, we wouldn't have most of the problems we do today.

 

[blackhawk2000]

The managers were not so smart. When it's time for unholstering it's time for shooting, and the time for talking is over.

 

[ara27499]

I do not find his reasoning interesting nor of value.

Ditto.

ara27499

 

[hobgob]

Police said the problem started when store manager Marino Hernandez shouted at Grant that he was walking into the store through the wrong doors.

sans authoritus said:

But do you not admit that this whole situation might have been totally avoided if the store owner had a little tact and civility, and had not yelled at someone for going through automatic doors the wrong way?

sans, maybe you have other sources, but I don't see anything about automatic doors. Could it not be that the guy was trying to walk in through a back or side door with intention of robbery? To me that might warrant a more stern response.

 

[Rachen]

I guess the Antis lied to us...

You guess??? How can you guess that the antis are lying to us, if all of their lives, they have been trained and conditioned to lie like credit card thieves?

 

[Phil DeGraves]

"This was a shooting over essentially, the way someone walked in a door. This was probably a shooting that could have, and should have, been avoided."

That statement assumes an awful lot. If a person is going to be escalated just by informing him that he is coming through the wrong door, then I seriously doubt that his intentions at the store were of a benevolent nature. Maybe there was an urgency that the manager saw that precipitated him shouting. Maybe he was some distance away and was shouting to be heard. We weren't there. We don't know. The other assumptions are just as valid. What we do know is a guy walked into the store, argued with the managers and drew a gun. The managers took responsibility for their own safety and responded in kind. Sounds good to me.

"The managers were not so smart. When it's time for unholstering it's time for shooting, and the time for talking is over."

Easy to Monday Morning Quarterback that too. What is the backstop on the far side of the BG? Innocent civilians? Don't know. You just can't say "they should be shooting." Most people are unwilling to put a round in another person, especially when he is retreating. What would Sans have said about that?

 

[Phil DeGraves]

"(Mr. Whipple) was a fictitious grocery store manager on a Charmin toilet paper television commercial who would always scold the ladies who wanted to squeeze the the toilet paper because it was, well, so darned soft."

And Billy, the little kid in the commercial was none other than Adam Savage (Mythbusters).

 

[WayneConrad]

When it's time for unholstering it's time for shooting, and the time for talking is over.

Nonsense.

Statistics show that 90% of self defense uses of a firearm do not involve a discharge of the firearm.

Would you convert all of those into shootings?

 

[MakAttak]

And Mak, if you felt demeaned as a result of anything I said, I do apologize. It was not and would not be my intention to demean anyone.

-Sans Authoritas

Don't worry, people in person would have enough trouble trying to demean me, an internet conversation is extremely unlikely to affect my self-image.

I do, however, think you made unnecessary and faulty assumptions, but since none of us were there, we cannot comment on how best this would have been avoided.

This is why I placed the blame squarely on the law-breaker.