Panzerschwein
member
EDIT: On second though, yes this could have ended quite badly. I withdraw my previous comment. I just hate robbers and criminals with a passion and I got a little overzealous there. My apologies.
Last edited:
Would-Be Armed Robber Ends Up With A Loaded Gun In His Face
- Thread starter vtail
- Start date
- Status
GBExpat
Member
Cooldill said:
Really?But not to anyone with any training.
Careful! We do not allow that kind of comment here.
The only reason he "should have" was to save himself.
The fact that no shots were fired makes the result the best of all possible outcomes.
Now the open question remains, did the clerk act imprudently but with luck, or was this unusual incident something other than we have been led to believe, as some have suspected?
Panzerschwein
member
Please reread my first post, it has been edited by me.
Cosmoline
Member
Once the gun is coming up and the unlawful imminent peril clear for all to see, the time for "reading" is over. The time for shooting or being shot is at hand.
Officers'Wife
Member
I'm the same way with people that drink and drive, but I advocate making DUI a capital offense after a trial.
We're into page 4 on this one. Fortunately no one was injured, but informed opinion tells us that the clerk's actions did not demonstrate sound tactics, and we have a video showing what not to do.
As yet, we have had no arrests, and suspicions have been raised about the veracity of some aspects of the article.
We'll close this now. Should any new developments unfold, or should any heretofore unknown facts emerge, we will reopen the thread. Please e-mail me, Fred Fuller, or Al Thompson with the scoop.
As yet, we have had no arrests, and suspicions have been raised about the veracity of some aspects of the article.
We'll close this now. Should any new developments unfold, or should any heretofore unknown facts emerge, we will reopen the thread. Please e-mail me, Fred Fuller, or Al Thompson with the scoop.
The Robber
One Arvin Brandon Smith has been apprehended in Arizona. Police reportedly have probable cause to charge him in the Marionville robbery.
He was reportedly under the influence. Methamphetamines, synthetic marijuana, prescription dugs, and alcohol are mentioned.
He was apparently armed with a gas or air powered pistol.
One can only speculate whether store clerk Jon Alexander Lewis might have been shot had he pulled a gun on a meth head armed with a firearm.
One Arvin Brandon Smith has been apprehended in Arizona. Police reportedly have probable cause to charge him in the Marionville robbery.
He was reportedly under the influence. Methamphetamines, synthetic marijuana, prescription dugs, and alcohol are mentioned.
He was apparently armed with a gas or air powered pistol.
One can only speculate whether store clerk Jon Alexander Lewis might have been shot had he pulled a gun on a meth head armed with a firearm.
Officers'Wife
Member
Interesting...
Which raises the question was knowing the weapon pointed at him was an air gun the reason the clerk chose not to shoot. And ipso facto would the other course still have been sound tactic? Do self defense laws and the sensitivities of juries in Colorado stand that a person can be in fear of their life from a B-B gun?
I still like to have a ftf convo with the clerk.
Which raises the question was knowing the weapon pointed at him was an air gun the reason the clerk chose not to shoot. And ipso facto would the other course still have been sound tactic? Do self defense laws and the sensitivities of juries in Colorado stand that a person can be in fear of their life from a B-B gun?
I still like to have a ftf convo with the clerk.
GBExpat
Member
Kleanbore said:
He appears that way to me in the video.
Al Thompson
Moderator Emeritus
Two thoughts come to mind. One, the reasonable person doctrine, so IMHO, if it looks like a firearm, you'd be prudent to treat it as one. Two, if you knew it was a BB gun, do the local laws equate "grievous bodily harm" with getting your eye destroyed.
X-Rap
Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2006
- Messages
- 6,657
Looks like another of the worst kind of losers who will get it right someday and really kill someone.
This is the part of our system that needs fixing, he is obviously caught in the revolving door of the legal system.
The clerk, if he follows up, might be disapointed that he could have saved someone elses life.
This is the part of our system that needs fixing, he is obviously caught in the revolving door of the legal system.
The clerk, if he follows up, might be disapointed that he could have saved someone elses life.
Trunk Monkey
member
officers'wife said:
Given the robbery occured in Missouri and the suspect was aprehended in Arizona where does a Colorado jury enter the equation at all
Officers'Wife
Member
It's what happens when you try to post from memory and lack of sleep. I had just read a number of articles on CO and - made a mistake. Comes from being human and seriously overdrawn at the sleep bank. Is that a satisfactory explanation?
Last edited:
I think it much more likely that he would have suffered greatly had he happened to take the life of the robber.
Even more so, when the fact of the BB gun became known to him, though that would not have affected justification.
Trunk Monkey
member
Officers' wife said:
Yes. My appologies
Basically, another opportunity to armchair quarterback an incident with no prior knowledge of the circumstances.
So far, we have assertions the clerk did nothing right, he's culpable for even letting the perp escape, and he's a fraud anyway. It's a staged fight, and there's plenty to cherry pick in detail that doesn't meet somebody's standards of armed conflict. Anyone who disagrees is dismissed as being incompetent.
Sounds like a monkey dance to me. Put down the clerk by any means to show yourself tactically superior. No credit to him whatsoever.
Sounds High Road to me.
I have little doubt the owner of the liquor store is quite content he made the right decision in hiring this guy. He knew the risks, analyzed his choice, and guess what, no negative publicity. It's a safe store to shop at, his rep is intact, and the store is still open, same clerk on duty.
Nobody comes in to view blood stains on the tile floors, just happy shoppers who can say hi to a local semi celebrity.
Here, he's treated like George Zimmerman.
I speculate had the clerk shot, many would have patted him on the back and jumped at the chance to serve on a jury and exonerate him. Likely the prosecutor would have weeded you out in the first round of questioning.
Not that I saw things here as an education of the concept, I always thought taking the high road decision as making the harder choice. Shooting the perp was going to be all too easy, that could have been done once the gun was up - the clerk refrained from the choice. Why? Some claim he doesn't have the killer instinct.
Points in favor - or to put it another way, he's not a uncaring psychopath incapable of having feelings about other human beings. Apparently quite a few are lined up in this thread advocating he should be.
You don't have to say, I'd shoot him between the eyes. All that has to be implied is that he's too incompetent to have done so.
Apparently meaning, only those who would have shot him are good enough. Good enough for what? Proving they are over the edge and would take a life regardless?
I don't read a "What would a reasonable man do" in that response. A reasonable man would take what he knows in his training and experience, apply it to the estimation of risk in handling his opponent, and apply the amount of force necessary to equal the others attempt. And yet, it's said this clerk was incompetent in doing that.
I'd remind you that there is a study out there that purports millions of like incidents occur every year - no shots fired. At the very least, it sets up the debate among his detractors that there isn't enough evidence to assert one way or the other whether shots are fired or not in the majority of cases.
Nonetheless, it's being totally ignored here. Incidents without shots being fired actually do happen. Apparently that is situation to be deplored as not being High Road?
What was the harder choice to make? I would suggest pulling the trigger from uncontrolled fear was the easy way out. I read it in a lot of the responses.
So far, we have assertions the clerk did nothing right, he's culpable for even letting the perp escape, and he's a fraud anyway. It's a staged fight, and there's plenty to cherry pick in detail that doesn't meet somebody's standards of armed conflict. Anyone who disagrees is dismissed as being incompetent.
Sounds like a monkey dance to me. Put down the clerk by any means to show yourself tactically superior. No credit to him whatsoever.
Sounds High Road to me.
I have little doubt the owner of the liquor store is quite content he made the right decision in hiring this guy. He knew the risks, analyzed his choice, and guess what, no negative publicity. It's a safe store to shop at, his rep is intact, and the store is still open, same clerk on duty.
Nobody comes in to view blood stains on the tile floors, just happy shoppers who can say hi to a local semi celebrity.
Here, he's treated like George Zimmerman.
I speculate had the clerk shot, many would have patted him on the back and jumped at the chance to serve on a jury and exonerate him. Likely the prosecutor would have weeded you out in the first round of questioning.
Not that I saw things here as an education of the concept, I always thought taking the high road decision as making the harder choice. Shooting the perp was going to be all too easy, that could have been done once the gun was up - the clerk refrained from the choice. Why? Some claim he doesn't have the killer instinct.
Points in favor - or to put it another way, he's not a uncaring psychopath incapable of having feelings about other human beings. Apparently quite a few are lined up in this thread advocating he should be.
You don't have to say, I'd shoot him between the eyes. All that has to be implied is that he's too incompetent to have done so.
Apparently meaning, only those who would have shot him are good enough. Good enough for what? Proving they are over the edge and would take a life regardless?
I don't read a "What would a reasonable man do" in that response. A reasonable man would take what he knows in his training and experience, apply it to the estimation of risk in handling his opponent, and apply the amount of force necessary to equal the others attempt. And yet, it's said this clerk was incompetent in doing that.
I'd remind you that there is a study out there that purports millions of like incidents occur every year - no shots fired. At the very least, it sets up the debate among his detractors that there isn't enough evidence to assert one way or the other whether shots are fired or not in the majority of cases.
Nonetheless, it's being totally ignored here. Incidents without shots being fired actually do happen. Apparently that is situation to be deplored as not being High Road?
What was the harder choice to make? I would suggest pulling the trigger from uncontrolled fear was the easy way out. I read it in a lot of the responses.
No. Just not very prudent.
In most such cases, the defender did not face a person with gun in hand and decide to not shoot.
Of course not!
"Uncontrolled fear"? Really?
The clerk faced a man with a gun in his hand. Had the gun been real, the man could have shot the clerk several times before he had realized what had happened, and certainly before he had realized the need to shoot and had done so, and most certainly before his own fire would have prevented the robber from shooting.
The only indisputable reason that this incident ended with no shots fired is that the gun was not real.
Some years back, I found myself standing smack-dab in the middle of a bank robbery. Yes, I was carrying, and yes, I am Advanced Tactical trained.
The teller, who knew I was carrying, wanted for me intervene. Not a chance in Hades! I was taught to leave my handgun holstered unless it looked like the perp was going to injure someone, ie shoot them. This character (bank robber) was anything but violent. I made the right decision, and after the event offered to be a good witness. The tellers didn't want for me to stand and wait for the police.
In truth, what could I add to the bank's videos?! Not much. I made the right decision...be a good witness. I have the details posted here from some years back. Feel free to search for the thread. There isn't any sense in reposting it.
Geno
The teller, who knew I was carrying, wanted for me intervene. Not a chance in Hades! I was taught to leave my handgun holstered unless it looked like the perp was going to injure someone, ie shoot them. This character (bank robber) was anything but violent. I made the right decision, and after the event offered to be a good witness. The tellers didn't want for me to stand and wait for the police.
In truth, what could I add to the bank's videos?! Not much. I made the right decision...be a good witness. I have the details posted here from some years back. Feel free to search for the thread. There isn't any sense in reposting it.
Geno
TonyDedo
Member
I think the problem is the clerk is cocky. Maybe it comes from his work experience, maybe it's just his personality.
He said he didn't feel threatened because the gun was not pointed at him, and that's why he didn't shoot. He did a great job of closing the distance and getting control of the perp's gun, but then he let the gun slip out of his control and let the perp walk away with it.
He believed that he could shoot, hit and disable the perp before the perp could raise his gun and fire. That's a HUGE gamble there. Even if he were to fire the second the perp moved and hit him cleanly, what's to say the bullet would do enough damage to stop the perp from returning fire?
I like the discipline the clerk showed in closing the distance, grabbing the perp's gun and drawing at the same time - I doubt I could have pulled that off. But I think (Monday morning QB), he should have fired as soon as the perp pulled away and the clerk lost control of the perp's firearm.
He said he didn't feel threatened because the gun was not pointed at him, and that's why he didn't shoot. He did a great job of closing the distance and getting control of the perp's gun, but then he let the gun slip out of his control and let the perp walk away with it.
He believed that he could shoot, hit and disable the perp before the perp could raise his gun and fire. That's a HUGE gamble there. Even if he were to fire the second the perp moved and hit him cleanly, what's to say the bullet would do enough damage to stop the perp from returning fire?
I like the discipline the clerk showed in closing the distance, grabbing the perp's gun and drawing at the same time - I doubt I could have pulled that off. But I think (Monday morning QB), he should have fired as soon as the perp pulled away and the clerk lost control of the perp's firearm.
- Status