In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options

Man Shoots Robber, Then Fatally Shot While Calling

Josey1Josey1 Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
edited December 2002 in General Discussion
Man Shoots Robber, Then Fatally Shot While Calling 911
The Associated Press
Published: Nov 26, 2002




LARGO, Fla. (AP) - A man shot a would-be robber Tuesday, but was then shot and killed by the suspect while calling 911.
The victim was walking home with a woman at about 2:20 p.m. from a nearby grocery store and was confronted by the suspect, who forced the man and woman into their apartment and attempted to rob them, Bay News 9 in St. Petersburg reported.

"Once inside the man armed himself and shot the suspect, wounding him. The suspect then shot and killed the man," said police spokesman Brandon Graham.

Police did not release the names of either the couple or the suspect. A message left with Largo police was not immediately returned.

The suspect was airlifted to Bayfront Medical Center, where he was being evaluated, a hospital spokeswoman said.

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/florida/MGA44WDF09D.html




"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

Comments

  • Options
    Matt45Matt45 Member Posts: 3,185
    edited November -1
    We just talked about this- sorta.

    I'll just hit the highlight:quote:2. Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is cheap. Life is expensive.



    http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=38535

    Reserving my Right to Arm Bears!!!!
    People
    Eating
    Tasty
    Animals
  • Options
    Judge DreadJudge Dread Member Posts: 2,372 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    The first rule ,you shoot somebody you take his gun you keep under sight at all time ,if in warfare aquiring multiple targets go for the head , no one wants a "bouncer" to get you from the grave wile you are too busy shooting his buddys...

    JD

    Donate to free energy R&D Just Paypall $$$ to:
    arkresearch@hotmail.com
    Intelligence is not measured in paper but in the ability of adaptation and analysis performance in multy-tasking problem solving work....
  • Options
    dheffleydheffley Member Posts: 25,000
    edited November -1
    Lesson 1. If your shot was not "well" placed, place another one in a better spot!

    The NRA is on our side!
  • Options
    steve45steve45 Member Posts: 2,940 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I dont know how it would play in court (and dont care)but Id keep shooting untill hes down, then disarm him and call.
  • Options
    offerorofferor Member Posts: 8,625 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    steve45--
    It should play fine. You may shoot until the attack has ended if necessary. This guy's mistake was in not kicking away the gun, or keeping a bead on him and letting the woman make the call -- something like that. A good object lesson. Just because you have shot a perp, don't expect him to be so impressed that he just lies down. Have you seen that video footage where the cop has to keep fighting with an idiot he has already shot in the abdomen?
  • Options
    greeker375greeker375 Member Posts: 3,644
    edited November -1
    It's the same as with a dead snake won't bite...MAKE SURE! If you think he's dead, but, aren't sure remove the gun from his reach, keep him covered and have someone else make a call that one is down and the one with the gun is the good guy and how dressed, etc. If he's wounded, ORDER the bad guy into a face down with palms reversed and facing upward and head up against a wall until the good guys arrive.

    As one who has some knowledge about surviving on the streets you learn quickly that somebody will question ANY death (regradless, citizen or perp). However, when only one is left, regardless, the number of bullets in the body(preferably the good guy)rule # 1 applies...It's always better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6!
  • Options
    pickenuppickenup Member Posts: 22,844 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Repeat after me, always, AT LEAST
    "two in the body, one in the head."
    "two in the body, one in the head."
    "two in the body, one in the head."
    "two in the body, one in the head."
    "two in the body, one in the head."


    The gene pool needs chlorine.
  • Options
    Big Sky RedneckBig Sky Redneck Member Posts: 19,752 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    As tempting as it may be, "executing" the bad guy will spell bad news in court. It has been preached by all levels of legal advisors including cops, shoot to stop the attack, any "killing" shots after the attack has ended will be considered murder.

    Real men use little bullets.
    redneck1314@pennswoods.net
  • Options
    DarrellDarrell Member Posts: 733 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Repeat after me, always, AT LEAST
    "two in the body, one in the head."
    "two in the body, one in the head."
    "two in the body, one in the head."
    "two in the body, one in the head."
    "two in the body, one in the head."
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    That sounds great in a gun magazine, but not logical in practice or in dealing with legal issues. You assume a head shot will work and the odds of hitting the entire body are slim at best under ideal conditions even at room range. You also limit yourself to any and other options that may be more applicable. REAL LIFE is no place to start gun magazine mantras. With todays forensics you can now tell in what order the bullets hit etc. Shooting someone to satisfy a gun magazine mantra vs the NEED is a issue you don't want to face.
    Lethal force must be applied ONLY to the extent it is NEEDED. It may be just one shot. And don't let ONE case try to justify a mantra vs the NEED. BTW the shooter "invented" the olde trendy Mozambique drill DIED in a shooting. It has it's flaws. But it sure sounds "kewl."
  • Options
    steve45steve45 Member Posts: 2,940 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I would rather be tried by twelve than carried by six. Im going to keep shooting until he's down hard. If that means he gets hit while hes falling then it does. I would have to impress on a jury that Im not a professional gunfighter, that I was scared, and that I stopped as soon as I could see the attack was over. If thats not enough then I go to jail. Remember the reason for this post is the victim is DEAD.
  • Options
    Big Sky RedneckBig Sky Redneck Member Posts: 19,752 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    All I was saying is that a single well ainmed shot to the head when the attacker is down is not kosher as far as the courts are concerned, if the man is down you can most likely dissarm him instead of walking up and "executing" him.

    Real men use little bullets.
    redneck1314@pennswoods.net
  • Options
    JDFRICKJDFRICK Member Posts: 104 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Hind sight is ALWAYS 20/20. Since I have the luxury of knowing the results maybe the best thing would have been for him to keep an eye on the thug,and have his partner make the call.I think what GREEKER 357 said was the best advice.

    JIM FRICK
  • Options
    DarrellDarrell Member Posts: 733 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Remember 50% of those shot in the heart will live and even if the heart is destroyed the person may still fight for a full minute or more and can do a lot of damage. Also few shots in self defense are ideal and well placed. KEEP shooting until you feel secure. There is NO limit. Thinking you will shoot two or three shots and stop (which is nonsense) is like telling a 17 yr old boy having sex for the first time to just try three strokes and stop and explain if he likes it.
  • Options
    steve45steve45 Member Posts: 2,940 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Darrell, we agree on that. From what I've read many thousands of Police officers have died in gunfights even though they inflicted fatal wounds on their attackers first. Pistol rounds do not have an abundance of INSTANT stopping power unless the spine or brain is hit. Thats why I would use the same logic the American Doughboys used in WWI. Keep shooting until their down.
  • Options
    DarrellDarrell Member Posts: 733 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Darrell, we agree on that. From what I've read many thousands of Police officers have died in gunfights even though they inflicted fatal wounds on their attackers first. Pistol rounds do not have an abundance of INSTANT stopping power unless the spine or brain is hit. Thats why I would use the same logic the American Doughboys used in WWI. Keep shooting until their down.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Regardless of bullet type or caliber a handgun is anemic against a human. Yup a .22 short can drop you like a rock..but it's about placement and in self defense you will have little input on where that bullet(s) goes and most will be far from ideally placed. KEEP SHOOTING for get the trendy kewl "drills." SHOOT!!! And a LOT of it.
  • Options
    pickenuppickenup Member Posts: 22,844 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Darrell;

    First you attack my post with
    quote: That sounds great in a gun magazine, but not logical in practice or in dealing with legal issues. Lethal force must be applied ONLY to the extent it is NEEDED.

    Then you come back with;
    quote:KEEP shooting until you feel secure. There is NO limit. KEEP SHOOTING
    quote: SHOOT!!! And a LOT of it.

    Speaks for itself, dosn't it? ROFLMAO

    The gene pool needs chlorine.
  • Options
    Big Sky RedneckBig Sky Redneck Member Posts: 19,752 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Some of this advise will land you in jail. Science can discredit an awfull lot of "he did this and he did that" stories.

    Keep shooting after the man is down, intentionaly kill him, and see what happens.

    Do you actually know anybody who has killed someone? I do, one is in prison and the other is "disturbed" now. After talking to them I have to agree with the known pros, once the attack is stopped, stop shooting. If you shoot after the attack is over, it is nothing more than a cold blooded execution. If you let yourselves believe the gunrag stories you will get more than you bargained for. Myself, I pray to god above i never have to fire a shot at another human being and if I do I pray I don't let my emotions get away from me.

    Darell it sounds as though you are promoting the idea that you must "kill the sucka" and that is bad advise, I hope when one of your students end up in jail that you are held liable as well.

    And if you want to call me on the two people I know who have killed, since their names are already public record I will give you the names and cities, if you are as good as you claim you will see this is not a bogus claim.

    James Ritchey- Norfolk VA. In prison for MURDER(self defense). Shooting happened in the 80s.

    Troy Christoff - Mt. Union PA, served time for manslaughter and is presently "not all there" Shooting happened in the 90s.

    Jimmy was a childhood friend of mine, ruined because of bad advise.
    Troy was an aquaintence, ruined as well on advise for a homeowner.

    Real men use little bullets.
    redneck1314@pennswoods.net
  • Options
    DarrellDarrell Member Posts: 733 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Repeat after me, always, AT LEAST
    "two in the body, one in the head."
    "two in the body, one in the head."
    "two in the body, one in the head."
    "two in the body, one in the head."
    "two in the body, one in the head."
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Looks like THREE shots to me and if you think 6 head shots are proper lots of luck. Considering the miss rate as we know it exists thinking you will hit a smaller moving target is a real stretch. Better someone attack your post than you, because so far you like giving them the advantage. But I will bow to your real world experience on such matters. I had a lot of theories on girls until I got laid.
  • Options
    chunkstylechunkstyle Member Posts: 2,463 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Darrell;
    First you attack my post with
    quote: That sounds great in a gun magazine, but not logical in practice or in dealing with legal issues. Lethal force must be applied ONLY to the extent it is NEEDED.
    Then you come back with;
    quote:KEEP shooting until you feel secure. There is NO limit. KEEP SHOOTING
    quote: SHOOT!!! And a LOT of it.
    Speaks for itself, dosn't it? ROFLMAO

    I am not one to indulge in ad hominem, but I DO want to know how well the "keep firing till you are SURE he is stopped" strategy actually works in a courtroom. Is the best strategy a minimum-force one, or should one just unload?
  • Options
    steve45steve45 Member Posts: 2,940 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    7MM nut, I was never suggesting a finisher shot or shooting at someone who is down and out of the fight. Im suggesting shooting until the attackers weapon is no longer pointing at me. I would like to know the circumstances of the shootings your friends were involved in. And what the juries decision was.
  • Options
    DarrellDarrell Member Posts: 733 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I am not one to indulge in ad hominem, but I DO want to know how well the "keep firing till you are SURE he is stopped" strategy actually works in a courtroom. Is the best strategy a minimum-force one, or should one just unload?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I know how it works in a courtroom. NOT a serious issue. They tried that logic in Diallo and it didn't work. I have a california case where police put 250 bullets INTO a suspect (imagine what missed) and it is only an issue with the family, not the courts. Also Mark Essex in New Orleans was shot with a M60 and hit so many times his leg was cut off (have the picture) and nobody blinked. You shoot until you get the desired effect..whatever it takes.
  • Options
    Matt45Matt45 Member Posts: 3,185
    edited November -1
    quote: Also Mark Essex in New Orleans was shot with a M60 and hit so many times his leg was cut off (have the picture) and nobody blinked. You shoot until you get the desired effect..whatever it takes.

    Darrell- Could you expand on this a little? Primarily, I would like to know who was doing the shooting.

    Reserving my Right to Arm Bears!!!!
    People
    Eating
    Tasty
    Animals
  • Options
    DarrellDarrell Member Posts: 733 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Darrell- Could you expand on this a little? Primarily, I would like to know who was doing the shooting.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    1973 New Orleans. A lone sniper who shot at some folks from a roof of a Holiday Inn. Took 12 hours to get him. Police fired an estimated 100,000+ rounds and never hit hiim. Building was almost destroyed just by gunfire. He got to the roof and got into a space between two concrete walls. Armed with just a .44 Magnum winchester lever action he killed and wounded several. Finally a helo was used and a door gunner type with a M-60 fired on his position and finally killed him. He was raked with gunfire and one left was severed by gunfire when he stumbled onto the roof. Not one * as I recall. I visited the hotel a few years ago. Still badly poc marked.
  • Options
    chunkstylechunkstyle Member Posts: 2,463 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:
    I am not one to indulge in ad hominem, but I DO want to know how well the "keep firing till you are SURE he is stopped" strategy actually works in a courtroom. Is the best strategy a minimum-force one, or should one just unload?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I know how it works in a courtroom. NOT a serious issue. They tried that logic in Diallo and it didn't work. I have a california case where police put 250 bullets INTO a suspect (imagine what missed) and it is only an issue with the family, not the courts. Also Mark Essex in New Orleans was shot with a M60 and hit so many times his leg was cut off (have the picture) and nobody blinked. You shoot until you get the desired effect..whatever it takes.

    Darrell, my question was more aimed at what works best in a self-defense situation, not a police shooting.
  • Options
    DarrellDarrell Member Posts: 733 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Darrell, my question was more aimed at what works best in a self-defense situation, not a police shooting.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    In court THEE issue is your compliance with YOUR state law. It won't be about what gun or bullets etc. Nobody really cares. If the shoot was legal a bowling ball will work fired from anything. The law has no concern with your choice of weapons. A few lawyers that try that road almost always have their head handed to them in the process and most wised up a long time ago and know better than to try that route. In courts you find prosecutors first choice of attack is if it was legal to shoot in the first place. Was the threat genuine and iminent? Did you exhaust all other options? Did you start or escalate the event? Most self defense cases will come apart pretty fast based on who started/escalated the event. In Minnesota the case to review is Minn. vs Austin (1983) for the legal standards.
    This also brings into the play the "back to thw wall doctrine" where you are left with no other options and toss in the "reasonable man" doctrine.
    The case at hand is not about guns or bullets interestingly enough. It's about LOGIC. You NEVER take your eyes off the person until adequate help is at hand. If someone else is with you have them make calls etc. NEVER approach the person regardless of pleas for aid or assistance.
    Three SIMPLE rules. Hands, distance and barrier. Watch thier hands.....keep your distance and place a barrier between you and them.
Sign In or Register to comment.