Bank robber shot during holdup (CO)

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

hkOrion

Member
Joined
May 12, 2004
Messages
190
Location
5,008 ft high in the Rockies
WINDSOR - Police in Windsor are investigating an attempted robbery at a liquor store that happened Friday afternoon.

It happened at the corner liquor store near 6th and Ash. As the suspect was trying to leave with the money, the two owners of the store cornered him in an aisle.

One of the owners had a gun. They told the suspect to drop his gun. When he did not the owner shot the suspect in the head, police said.

The suspect underwent surgery Friday evening. His current condition is not known.

http://www.9news.com/acm_news.aspx?...MPLATEID=0c76dce6-ac1f-02d8-0047-c589c01ca7bf
 
didn't read the article, but based on orion's description, i'll take the "textbook: what not to do" side on this one.

robber is leaving, so nobody's being threatened, right? is deadly force justified in CO in this instance?

should the proprieter be allowed to pursue and then shoot?

if the proprieter took the time to talk to the robber, did he feel his life was really in danger or was he just wanting revenge or his $ back?


from a practical standpoint, shooting someone in this situation (a fleeing robber)
1. exposes the owner to massive civil liability and risk of prison
2. gains much unwanted press/attention
3. probably results in considerable emotional issues
4. will cause the shop to be closed for at least a couple days, resulting in the loss of a whole lot more money than whatever pittance the knucklehead took from the register.
5. will result in the gun being seized as evidence for several months if not permanently

was it really a good idea?
 
Every shooting is open to questions.

What came to my mind: in certain places, once a felony has been commited, lethal force can be employed to stop or detain the perp. I am not familar enough with CO law to know if this applies.

I would say If they facts are as reported, that it was a morally legitimate shoot. Which is something totally different from what's legally wise.....
 
Lmfao!!!!!!!!

Okay, if every gun used in a crime is a "deadly assault weapon" -- with very few exceptions -- I guess it should be no surprise that to the news media, even a liquor store robbery is a "BANK ROBBERY."

I mean, that IS what the headline says. :banghead: :rolleyes: :neener:


-Jeffrey
 
Laws will vary from state to state but generally you must feel immediate physical threat to imploy deadly force. Some states may allow the victim to pursue and detain a criminal and most if not all states recognize arrest powers of a citizen who witnesses a crime (the "citizen's arrest"). I would argue that the storeowner had the right to confront the robber and if the robber made any provocative move then shooting him was justified as the storeowner felt an immediate threat.

A prosecutor, or jury, or civil attorney for the family may always disagree, of course.

The fact that the confrontation took place while everyone was still inside the store may also have an effect on the legality of the situation. If the victim follows the robber outside the rules may change as some jurisdictions would now view the victim as the aggressor.

Legalities can be convoluted and confusing. I have a simple personal policy regarding criminals. I have zero compassion and zero tolerance for anyone who steals, commits harm, or threatens to commit harm and I kill such people every chance I get. Criminals do not care about the welfare of their victims or society, so I don't care about them. I figure a dead criminal is a good criminal and I encourage good people to kill crooks as often as possible. If the laws don't support my position then the laws are wrong and need to be changed.
 
Laws will vary from state to state but generally you must feel immediate physical threat to imploy deadly force.
Click to expand...

Agreed. However, home invaders need to check the law in Georgia...there is no requirement that the home invader be armed or that the resident feel a threat of any kind. All that is legally required is that the resident feel that shooting is necessary to prevent the intruder from committing another felony. The type of felony or the time frame of the possible felony is not specified.
 
In the State of Colorado if you observe the commission of a felony on your property you can kill the bad guy with impunity.

All of this non sensical hand wringing (in other states) about proper treatment of a person who threatens your life in the commission of a crime does not apply here. I have always wondered why lawmakers in other states are so concerned for the careers of criminals.
 
taliv, so you have never been a proprietor, have you? You have never depended on you livelihood being from a small business where when times are tough, groceries are bought with money straight from the cash drawer because you aren't actually taking home a paycheck some weeks. You have never needed every dime to pay your store's lease, the electricity, suppliers, etc.

So the bad guy was still in the store when shot? Then he was still a threat. Just because he appeared to be walking away does NOT mean he was no longer a threat. He was stil in immediate proximity and armed after threatening everyone's lives. That sounds like a threat to me.

Just because he may have turned his back on the store owners does not mean that he was no longer a threat, but that he made a tactical blunder by turning his back on all those that were potential threats to him, those whom he had threatened. Moron. While usually it is the robbery victim who assumes that there had been some sort of contractual agreement (victim gives up money and robber leaves without causing harm), the robber in this case assumed that once he had the money, the robbery victims would be satisfied with their lives, that the danger of the event was over and he could walk out like nothing happened. He was wrong.

According to a show on TLC, FBI stats show some 13% of strong arm robberies result in the victim or witnesses (those not being robbed, but ordered to the ground during the robbery) get harmed by the bad guys AFTER the bad guys successfully obtained the $$.

As noted, the guy was still armed and still in the store and at least 1 time out of 8, he is still going do attempt to harm people in the business even though he already had the money.

As for cornering the guy in the isle, it was their money. They have every right to prevent the guy from getting away with their property. It isn't as if they hunted down the guy across town. He had not even left the store!

It isn't as if they just shot the guy. They had the jump on him and let me make the decision as to how things progressed. He opted not to comply and was summarily shot in the head as a result.
 
double naught, yeah, i was self employeed for a large portion of my career thus far, although i never operated a storefront. i'm not sure how that's relevant.

i guess i just always took a more conservative approach. if i were in their position, i'd let the guy keep walking towards the door. if he turned around, and headed back, i'd shoot him without hesitation. again, the logic there is that this is safer for me than chasing him down and confronting him. and 7/8ths of the time, by your numbers, i'm going to avoid having a dead guy in my store, which is going to cost me far more money than if he walked out with $60 from the til.


i'm NOT saying the owner did anything immoral. i'm all for just shooting all the robbers whether your life is in danger or not.

i'm saying realistically and practically, it was not the best decision. and that's not surprising, as people rarely well-thought-out decisions when they're full of adrenaline and emotionally involved
 
not only do i think it was a good shoot, i also think the message will be sent out to the community as a whole that further robbery attempts need not apply here.
 
it looks like Windsor finally hit big time. I moved to Windsor in 1978 when it was a nice little town of about 4,000. I left in 1999 and it was about 10,000. I think it is now about 15,000. in the area around Windsor you have Greeley , Loveland and Ft. Collins for a population of close to 300,000. with that many people around you will have crime. the climate is great but for the most part I sure don't miss it at all
 
Sounds like a good shoot.

They confronted to robber and ordered him to drop the weapon. I would hope he was shot because he made some type of threat of gesture.

He wasn't a fleeing felon shot in the back outside the store, which would not make it a good shooting.
 
double naught, yeah, i was self employeed for a large portion of my career thus far, although i never operated a storefront. i'm not sure how that's relevant.

i guess i just always took a more conservative approach. if i were in their position, i'd let the guy keep walking towards the door.

i'm saying realistically and practically, it was not the best decision. and that's not surprising, as people rarely well-thought-out decisions when they're full of adrenaline and emotionally involved
Click to expand...

Operating a store front is a big deal when you are self employed, especially if said robber is walking out with the money you need to stay in business or feed your family. That is how it is relevant.

Letting the guy keep walking towards the door is fine, but you are assuming that he intends to leave without causing harm. That can be and has proven to be a very poor decision for many people. You are also assuming that should the bad guy decide to cause you harm, that you are going to be able to REACT to the threat. These guys took a proactive position and put the robber in a position where he had to react to their demands. He did not react properly and could not react fast enough to stop from being shot in the head. It sounds to me like the less than ideal decision was on behalf of the robber for not complying.

As I read it, the robber lost control of the situation when he turned his back on his opposition, the intended victims. Now, they complied and gave him the money when he was in power, right? So they did the conservative and prudent thing. Then after he turned his back, they flanked him and had the jump on him, now being in the position of power where they made demands. The robber then failed to make the proper decision.

I think they did great! Privately owned little businesses usually do not have the benefit of income from an entire chain. Such a loss can be substantial relative to their individual business. They actively engaged in loss prevention.
 
So no one wants to question or ponder why the article had "BANK robbery" in the headline? :confused: I mean, ***? All guns are "deadly assault weapons," and any robbery is now a "bank robbery"?! :rolleyes:

It's a good thing we don't demand the same knowledge and skill of our airline pilots that we are apparently willing to accept of our "truth reporters"...

-Jeffrey
 
Fella's

As steveno noted, Ft. Collins & Greeley are immediate neighbors of Windsor Colorado. Ft. Collins is home to Colorado State University. Greeley is home to the University of Northern Colorado. UNC is as an entrenched bastion of feminazism as your gonna fine west of the Mississippi. CSU may not surpass the University of Colorado in Boulder as a liberal campus, but it's a product of the same state education bureaucracy. Both schools run journalism programs.

Was the reporter who authored the piece a product of either program? Who knows? The person coulda come from the U. of Missouri journalism program. But the poli-correct climate in the area is most definately condusive to that kind of "objective fact-finding". Read: manipulation.

On the other hand, one of the finest motorcycle racebike tuners in the U.S. has his shop in Windsor. Which forces me into the area every now & again.

900F
 
Another URL for this: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_2849787
robber is leaving, so nobody's being threatened, right? is deadly force justified in CO in this instance?
should the proprieter be allowed to pursue and then shoot?
Click to expand...
If it was on the owner's property, and the owner was already there when the criminal entered, it might very well fall under the make my day law. This wouldn't be the first time a DA has interpreted the law very loosely. :)
 
In the State of Colorado if you observe the commission of a felony on your property you can kill the bad guy with impunity.

All of this non sensical hand wringing (in other states) about proper treatment of a person who threatens your life in the commission of a crime does not apply here. I have always wondered why lawmakers in other states are so concerned for the careers of criminals.
Click to expand...

Isnt that the maike my day laws?

Man i love this state! well, aside form the new fireworks laws, but people ignore em anyways.

Oh yeah, and whats with the head shot?

Ide rather double tapp to the chest, cause if that guy moved aimaing at the head aint gonna work anymore.
 
The real CRIME here

is that the taxpayers will probably have to foot the bill to try to save the criminal's stinking life...We have no shortage of bad people on the planet...Just hate to go to extremes to keep them here!

:cuss:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

H
  • Locked
We need more gun control in CO!
Replies
9
Views
717
Standing Wolf
S
V
  • Locked
Teens to be pulled over for good driving (4th amendment??)
2 3 4
Replies
79
Views
3K
c_yeager
C
D
  • Locked
TV tower planned location threatened with loss through eminent domain
Replies
10
Views
495
afasano
A
S
  • Locked
The WiFi Cops are coming!!!
Replies
24
Views
2K
Gewehr98
G
D
  • Locked
(NC) Store owner shoots man during holdup
Replies
5
Views
1K
David Roberson
D
Back
Top