Coworkers CHL brother stops armed robbery

[surprise_i'm_armed]

1. Glad I don't live in California if a jury would find this man guilty of anything.
2. Being that the Zimmerman case is so screwed up right now, it might be best that these bad guys lived and that there is video of what CC is for and how it is properly used.
3. A .380 just went off my list. I have long entertained the idea of pocket carry with a .380 Bodyguard or LCR. Not anymore.4. The bonds for the BG's are insanely low IMHO...30K for the gun toter and 11K for the bat toter. They will be back on the street by Labor Day.

http://www.ruger.com/products/lcr/models.html

The above link is to Ruger.com's LCR page. The LCR (Lightweight Compact Revolver) is not available in .380.
It comes as a .22 (way too mouse gun for CC), a .38 Special (now you're in the protection window), or a .357
(serious CC caliber).

So carrying an LCR doesn't mean you have to be undergunned, caliber-wise, but if it's your only piece you will
be undergunned from a "round count" viewpoint (only 5 rounds), IMHO.
**********************************************************************************************************************************************

kyreb:
Regarding your carry piece with T-shirt and shorts - I can't adequately factor in your back problem with regard to
what you carry.

But my wardrobe quite often consists of a T-shirt and cargo shorts. With a large enough T-shirt I easily carry my
Ruger SR9C in an OWB at 4 o'clock and my revolver IWB at 11 o'clock + my extra 9MM mag.

I've never bought into the "smallest gun is best gun" mindset. Heck, if I didn't have SOME concealment needs at work,
my EDC might well be a double stack .45 with a 5" barrel. :-)

SIA

[barstoolguru]

I can tell you this FL is a lot like Texas; He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony[/quote]

First off, Salty1 didn't write the whole post, the first paragraph was written by phillip964. Secondly, phillip964 was not serious and was being facetious.[/

Thank you for pointing that out; the question is still open "does FL law say you can shoot a fleeing felon". I have looked and can't seem to find a clear answer, it says you have a right to defend yourself but when is it “murder”. He pointed out a good point that the last two shot were “questionable”; did the man overstep his rights? We know here in Texas it’s OK but what about there

[Keith B]

Thank you for pointing that out; the question is still open "does FL law say you can shoot a fleeing felon". I have looked and can't seem to find a clear answer, it says you have a right to defend yourself but when is it “murder”. He pointed out a good point that the last two shot were “questionable”; did the man overstep his rights? We know here in Texas it’s OK but what about there

These guys were fleeing felons, but the individual was not trying to stop a fleeing felon; he was stopping someone who had threatened his and the life of others. In this case the man was still in the process of defending himself and those around and ensuring that the two were stopped from turning around and reengaging in the fight and that the threat had been eliminated. Just because a person turns their back on you doesn't mean he has given up the fight and you can no longer defend yourself, he could just be reloading.

EDIT TO ADD: I believe the 'fleeing felon' law you are refering to only pertains to a law enforcement officer.

EDIT TO ADD MORE: Here is the law http://law.justia.com/codes/florida/200 ... h0776.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

776.07 Use of force to prevent escape.--
(1) A law enforcement officer or other person who has an arrested person in his or her custody is justified in the use of any force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to prevent the escape of the arrested person from custody.
(2) A correctional officer or other law enforcement officer is justified in the use of force, including deadly force, which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to prevent the escape from a penal institution of a person whom the officer reasonably believes to be lawfully detained in such institution under sentence for an offense or awaiting trial or commitment for an offense.

[Kythas]

Thank you for pointing that out; the question is still open "does FL law say you can shoot a fleeing felon". I have looked and can't seem to find a clear answer, it says you have a right to defend yourself but when is it “murder”. He pointed out a good point that the last two shot were “questionable”; did the man overstep his rights? We know here in Texas it’s OK but what about there

These guys were fleeing felons, but the individual was not trying to stop a fleeing felon; he was stopping someone who had threatened his and the life of others. In this case the man was still in the process of defending himself and those around and ensuring that the two were stopped from turning around and reengaging in the fight and that the threat had been eliminated. Just because a person turns their back on you doesn't mean he has given up the fight and you can no longer defend yourself, he could just be reloading.

EDIT TO ADD: I believe the 'fleeing felon' law you are refering to only pertains to a law enforcement officer.

EDIT TO ADD MORE: Here is the law http://law.justia.com/codes/florida/200 ... h0776.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

776.07 Use of force to prevent escape.--
(1) A law enforcement officer or other person who has an arrested person in his or her custody is justified in the use of any force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to prevent the escape of the arrested person from custody.
(2) A correctional officer or other law enforcement officer is justified in the use of force, including deadly force, which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to prevent the escape from a penal institution of a person whom the officer reasonably believes to be lawfully detained in such institution under sentence for an offense or awaiting trial or commitment for an offense.

That's a bit different from the Fleeing Felon Doctrine. That was a doctrine that held deadly force may be used against someone who is suspected of having committed a felony and is in clear flight. Until 1985, deadly force was allowed against a person fleeing who was suspected of having committed a felony. However, in 1985, the Supreme Court ruled in Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."

The law you cited above deals with persons already under arrest and in custody. The Fleeing Felon Doctrine pertained to a person the police may suspect of a crime and is fleeing, but not yet under arrest.

[Keith B]

That's a bit different from the Fleeing Felon Doctrine. That was a doctrine that held deadly force may be used against someone who is suspected of having committed a felony and is in clear flight. Until 1985, deadly force was allowed against a person fleeing who was suspected of having committed a felony. However, in 1985, the Supreme Court ruled in Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."

The law you cited above deals with persons already under arrest and in custody. The Fleeing Felon Doctrine pertained to a person the police may suspect of a crime and is fleeing, but not yet under arrest.

Understand. Bottom line, the 'Fleeing felon' only pertains to LEO's. Texas allows you to stop someone from fleeing with your property in certain circumstances with deadly force , but I don't believe Florida has that in the statues.

[LeonCarr]

Hey Mr. Cotton,

It is nice to see a Les Baer Thunder Ranch Special that has actually been handled and shot.

Most people buy those and just show them off to their friends instead of using them for their intended purpose.

Good Job


I apologize to the OP for the temporary hijacking.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

[philip964]

"To me the DA should arrest the old guy for assault with a deadly weapon. From the video he obviously fired at least two shots after he was no longer in fear for his life. The last shot he fired as the man was scrambling away on the ground was clearly illegal."

I am sure happy that your not a DA determining exactly when a persons life is no longer in danger. At what point during their attempted escape did you determine that they would not turn around and return fire with absolute certainty that the situation is over? I watched the video many times and am unable to come up with the same conclusion as you have.

I am curious how can you tell the was not in fear for his life? can you say for sure the would not go outside and comeback in? What statue of FL law says you CAN"T shoot a fleeing felon? Sorry just because someone leaves does not mean the fight is over, too many times they go out and regroup and come back in.

I can tell you this FL is a lot like Texas; He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony

First off, Salty1 didn't write the whole post, the first paragraph was written by phillip964. Secondly, phillip964 was not serious and was being facetious.

Yes I used the smilie which was not reposted in the comments.

What I was most impressed with was how he charged the BG's firing the whole time and apparently connecting with his shots. Closing the distance, he improved his accuracy, but of course putting him at risk of being shot. This guy must have been at D-Day for his heroics.

While I was joking about the first part, the part about California, I was not. I have many friends even here in Texas that seeing that video would say he was attempting to murder them. Some people just think differently. They do not think citizens should have guns and assume when you are put in a dangerous position you did not initiate, you have the ability to perform without fault. If you don't, your as guilty as the person who initiated the crime.

[C-dub]

Hopefully, one of these guys will make a career path change.

“I feel horrible. It doesn't feel good. It makes you think about life's decisions, and how you should live your life,” Henderson said in an interview with the Star-Banner at the jail on Saturday afternoon.

It seems like the GG subscribed to Patton's battle strategy of attack attack attack. Keep moving forward. He didn't want to hear about anyone holding their ground. He wanted to be moving forward. Keeps the enemy off balance and on the defensive.

[Kythas]

In addition to his aggressiveness in closing with the enemy, I also like his tactical awareness at the end of the video. Notice after the robbers ran out the door, the man moved to the left, out of any line of fire from the glass window/door while still able to cover the entrance.

This man underwent some decent training at some point in his life and it appears to have stuck.

[The Annoyed Man]

To me the DA should arrest the old guy for assault with a deadly weapon. From the video he obviously fired at least two shots after he was no longer in fear for his life. The last shot he fired as the man was scrambling away on the ground was clearly illegal. Thank goodness for video, without it we would have thought that this guy was a hero.

Any jury in California would find him guilty without question.

Maybe, maybe not. I mean, generally you'd be right about that, but it would very much depend on where the trial was, who the victim was, and whether he was tried by judge or jury. There are still parts of California where consequences exist. Not many. But there are some.

Back when I was still living in the Los Angeles area, probably around the very early 1990s or so, I recall a case where a black owner of a barbershop in south central L.A. shot and killed a holdup man in the driveway of his house who was trying to rob him of his business's bank deposit. The reason I had made note of it at the time was that he shot the guy with a Colt Government .380, of which I had one, so it was personally interesting to me.

Apparently, it was a pretty open and shut case of self defense and justifiable use of deadly force, an as I recall, there were no charges filed at all. It would have been right around the very end of Daryl Gates' term as Chief of the LAPD, or the very beginning of Willie "They Won't Give me a Gun" Williams's term as Chief.

Williams, by the way, was notable because he was such a poor shot that he could not pass LAPD's qualification to carry a firearm as a police officer, and so he got around it by having the L.A. County Sheriff issue him a concealed carry permit............one of the very few issued by L.A. County.

That said, I would not want to be that barber today and have to use a gun to defend myself again.

[mdoan300]

Can anybody tell how many shots the old guy fired? From the second article, he got only 3 hits (2 in one BG, 1 in the other BG). And his last shot, one-handed and out the door, had me cringe a little -- did he have a good sight picture and know what was around and beyond his target?

[Keith B]

Can anybody tell how many shots the old guy fired? From the second article, he got only 3 hits (2 in one BG, 1 in the other BG). And his last shot, one-handed and out the door, had me cringe a little -- did he have a good sight picture and know what was around and beyond his target?

Couldn't tell for sure, but I counted 5-6.

And only he can tell you the last part.

[Kythas]

Can anybody tell how many shots the old guy fired? From the second article, he got only 3 hits (2 in one BG, 1 in the other BG). And his last shot, one-handed and out the door, had me cringe a little -- did he have a good sight picture and know what was around and beyond his target?

I'm sure his adrenaline level was through the roof, which would have impeded his fine motor skills, vision, and some judgment. In that situation you will not get a 100% hit rate and may take a parting shot like he did.

That's why it's important to train, even if only in your mind, to disengage once the threat is over. If you can train in your mind to not shoot, you will revert to that training in this type of situation.

[2farnorth]

I believe the last 2 shots shown were the same shot shown from 2 different cameras. Was it a legal shoot (last shot)? I believe the BG still had possession of the handgun and was still a threat to the shooter and the public. The shot through the doorway at the BG on the pavement made me cringe a little but there again the BG could have rolled over and fired back at the GG. The GG had no way of knowing that the BG's gun was "inoperable".

edit: Went back and looked at the video again and it says 3 angles. So it was either 3 or 4 shots. The middle 2 shots could be the same one also. Hard to really tell without knowing the layout of the facility.