KCMO Robbery leads to CCW holder shooting robber

[RobTzu]

http://blogs.kansascity.com/crime_scene/robberies/index.html

"A man and a woman, described as an older couple, were using the ATM at the Bank of America at North Oak Trafficway and Barry Road, police said, when a man approached with a gun and robbed them.

A couple was stopped at the ATM.

The robber was walking away when the male victim got out of the car with his gun and yelled for him to stop, said Sgt. Chris Lantz of the department’s robbery unit.

The robber turned around and pointed his gun at the man, Lantz said. The robbery victim fired his gun, hitting the robber in the head, he said."



I do not think this is going to end well for the robbery victim. The robber was leaving, and then he stopped him. That puts this one into iffy legal territory, though still solid moral ground IMO.




edit: Story does not have CCW included, but local talk radio made mention of it.

 

[romeo212000]

He will have a tough time in court I think, though morally did the right thing. Once the guy is walking away I let him go for legal reasons, especially if all i lost was cash. However, if I have the opportunity to defend myself beforehand, I will because you never know. Had a an assistant manager who worked at the sonic I did when in highschool who complied completely with a robber and was still shot. I was offered the same position in a fast track to ownership program a week ago and if I take it you better believe I will be carrying.

 

[FCFC]

I do not think this is going to end well for the robbery victim. The robber was leaving, and then he stopped him. That puts this one into iffy legal territory, though still solid moral ground IMO.

Yeah, but the robber supposedly turned around and pointed the gun at the robbery victim. Anytime someone points a gun at someone they would clearly be in reasonable fear of death/serious injury. And, therefore, justified in using deadly force. Unless there is a duty to retreat in MO.

I'm wondering what the distance was and how the guy is good enough to go for a head shot...

 

[Tyris]

Sounds like self defense. The robber pointed a gun at him, game over.

What kind of crack head prosecutor would bring charges against a robbery VICTIM.

Good shot BTW.

-T

 

[romeo212000]

Yes but the man stopped him as he was leaving and already had the gun on him first. Not saying it is right but he will be in litigation for the rest of his life probably.

 

[RobTzu]

Well the robber was on his way out, then the victim said something to stop him. I am worried that it could be construed as "mutual combat" or some such nonsense. Was the threat over before the victim "yelled"? If so I could easily see a prosecution. Hopefully more details come out tomorrow, I will check the papers, but this one seems iffy to me.

 

[Solo Flyer]

I see a 'no bill' on this one.
The victim took aggressive, possible lethal action only when a weapon was turned on him.
If this is correct,no grand jury will ever indict.
Of course its not Florida or Texas so I could be wrong.It's Kansas.

The robber was walking away when the male victim got out of the car with his gun and yelled for him to stop, said Sgt. Chris Lantz of the department’s robbery unit.

The robber turned around and pointed his gun at the man, Lantz said. The robbery victim fired his gun, hitting the robber in the head, he said."

 

[romeo212000]

It depends on what is viewed as aggresive action. Did the aggressive action begin when he started shooting or when he stopped the man and turned the gun on him? You and I know the right answer to this but will the sheeple? I would like to ask the robber if the few hundred dollars was worth his life.

 

[Leanwolf]

"The robber was walking away when the male victim got out of the car with his gun and yelled for him to stop, said Sgt. Chris Lantz of the department’s robbery unit."

Seems to me that the robbery victim was attempting to make a "Citizen's Arrest" of a criminal whom the robbery victim had "observed" committing a crime.

Most States have a clause in their penal code which allows citizens to make a "Citizen's Arrest," if said citizen has directly observed either a felony or misdemeanor being committed.

The robbery victim would most assuredly have qualified. While attempting to make said arrest, the criminal presented a deadly threat to the citizen who took action to prevent the criminal from killing/harming him.

That is, if Missouri allows "Citizen's Arrests."

Just my take on it.

L.W.

 

[RobTzu]

Of course its not Florida or Texas so I could be wrong.It's Kansas.

Its Missouri, thats where the MO in KCMO comes from. Kansas City, MO is the big city, Kansas City, KS is a satelitte city about 1/4 the population. It is always good to see national politicians goof that up when they make speeches here, they almost always get what side of the state line they are on wrong.

 

[Solo Flyer]

Of course its not Florida or Texas so I could be wrong.It's Kansas.

Sorry,Rob.Looked at YOUR location and goofed.And have watched The Wizard of Oz too many times.
And even Missouri is not Florida or Texas.
But still predict no indictment.

 

[MT GUNNY]

This is a much better situation for the Vic than the guy on the other thread that shot at a departing robbery vehicle.

 

[maestro pistolero]

The man had a right to demand his property back. If the Robber had complied instead of threatening the man's life, everybody might have gone home that night.

 

[wideym]

In the same situation I'm not sure I would have let him turn around before shooting.

I've been robbed at gunpoint at an ATM before. It's an experince I wouldn't recommend. First there was fear and then anger which turned to rage at the policemans apathy when he was taking my statement.

If you have ever felt the helplessness of being at the mercy of a thug, then you might understand what I'm talking about. If I could have done it over again the robber and his friend would be wearing toe tags, expecially if he turned his back on me.

 

[jrfoxx]

Seems to me that the robbery victim was attempting to make a "Citizen's Arrest" of a criminal whom the robbery victim had "observed" committing a crime.

Most States have a clause in their penal code which allows citizens to make a "Citizen's Arrest," if said citizen has directly observed either a felony or misdemeanor being committed.

The robbery victim would most assuredly have qualified. While attempting to make said arrest, the criminal presented a deadly threat to the citizen who took action to prevent the criminal from killing/harming him.

That's my take on it too. The above just helps reinforce the guy's position even more, as I personally think he was fine just from the fact he didnt fire at a fleeing robber, but at a robber who turned and pointed a gun at him. I think he will be OK unless MO has a duty to retreat. If they dont, but have no "citizens arrest" law, he may be a little shakey, but I think woud still be ok.

will be interesting to find out the law in MO on those 2 things, and see what happens with this guy in the future.

 

[doc2rn]

As I am from KS I wish I could get jourey duty on that one. It will probably be a questioned panel on if it should go to court. If the majority opinion is no then it is a "no bill".

 

[jad0110]

Most States have a clause in their penal code which allows citizens to make a "Citizen's Arrest," if said citizen has directly observed either a felony or misdemeanor being committed.

FYI to all: don't try it in NC ... we are one of the few states that has no provisions for "citizen's arrest" .

 

[mainmech48]

"What kind of crackhead prosecutor would bring charges against a robbery VICTIM?"

One who's facing strong opposition for re-election, harbors aspirations for higher office and/or has a personal socio-political axe to grind.

 

[TallPine]

What has this county come to that we even have to debate this one ?

Sounds to me like it comes under the classification of "stopping a forcible felony".

Edit: if it were me, the robber would have never had a chance to turn around

 

[Dbl0Kevin]

It utterly amazes me that on a FIREARMS message board full of people who carry guns, spout off about the RKBA, and chastise anti-gun sentiment that whenever a case of someone actually USING a gun for it's intended purpose we always have numerous people saying "oh no he shouldn't have done that!".

Good grief people! The guy got robbed, he took the earliest chance he had to gain the upper hand in the situation to stop a criminal and won. Now you want to second guess him and say "oh well he should have just let him go....he was already leaving". Are you kidding me?

Since when do we just let criminals go after their crime is complete? What part of American values and traditions is that from? I love how you can hear the statement countless times about how the police aren't required to protect you and will rarely solve certain crimes so we need guns, but then in the next breath it will be "oh well he shouldn't have taken it upon himself to do something just let him go and have the police handle it!"

If that is the attitude HERE of all places it really scares me to think what the general populace thinks. :banghead:

/Rant off

 

[drgrenthum]

Kevin,
i dont think you have many people disagreeing with you, we would all love to pull on the robber and make them accountable for what they have done. What the argument is, is whether or not the robbery victim is going ot be indicted based on current laws and political climate.

I believe he will not, not only because of what happened but also some sympathy for the "older couple". I think the DA would get alot of political harrasment if he went after a grandpa. If it was a 21 year old kid I think it would be different. Just the world we live in.

 

[SaxonPig]

Every citizen has the legal right to effect an arrest. You've heard the term "citizen's arrest," right? Well, the robbery victim was attempting to make a citizen's arrest and the perp resisted and threatened his life by pointing a gun at him.

Sounds like justifiable homicide to me. He didn't shoot the guy in the back (which would still be fine by me) but tried to stop him from fleeing so he could turn him over to police. He fired only when the criminal turned on him with a weapon.

 

[FCFC]

It utterly amazes me that on a FIREARMS message board full of people who carry guns, spout off about the RKBA, and chastise anti-gun sentiment that whenever a case of someone actually USING a gun for it's intended purpose we always have numerous people saying "oh no he shouldn't have done that!".

I don't see that we have numerous people saying the robbery victim of this thread was wrong.

I see only these posters making comments adverse to the shooter's position so far:

romeo212000---- Posts # 2, # 5, # 8

RobTzu------------ Post # 6


Seems like only two posters have indicated they criticize the robbery victim.
Everyone else has posted generally favorable or supportive comments about the shooter/robbery victime. Even FCFC seems to think it was a good shoot.

P.S. romeo and Rob are certainly entitled to their opinions, of course. No criticism is intended of their ability to post what they think.

 

[Dbl0Kevin]

Kevin,
i dont think you have many people disagreeing with you, we would all love to pull on the robber and make them accountable for what they have done.

As much as I'd like for that to be true I don't think it's correct to say we ALL feel this way. No it probably isn't the majority, but it never fails that there are usually several posters in any thread of this type with the response of "he/she should have just let this guy go". It really grates my nerves when I hear that sort of thing that people are so afraid to do the right thing these days.

 

[Dbl0Kevin]

I don't see that we have numerous people saying the robbery victim of this thread was wrong.

I see only these posters making comments adverse to the shooter's position so far:

romeo212000---- Posts # 2, # 5, # 8

RobTzu------------ Post # 6

Last I checked more than 1 would be numerous.