Elderly man shoots robbers in internet cafe

[novamind]

My Guess is a .380 amt backup. More on this here <broken link removed>

 

[Zepoll]

My Guess is a .380 amt backup. More on this here <broken link removed>

In the link that Dave Workman posted..

<broken link removed>

It's a Taurus TCP

 

[jake2far]

Hi All,
Sound like we need to think about a few things here. One, the other people in the Cafe and accross the street. Two, What if the bad guys hit someone in the cafe, What about your back stop. And three will I miss the bad guys.

Also that there is a felony going down. So you have the right to step in because of that. But what if you hit someone other then the bad guys? Can you say Law Suit, As a Police Officer, the City has insurance on you. Do you carry 5 million insurance on yourself?

Also just because they bad guys were doing wrong does not mean they can not sue you, because they can.

Also you will have to go to court. Interview, maybe a grand jury etc.......... The List go on.

From my point of view I would have maybe stepped in and done the same thing as Williams but again thinking of all the things stated above. There is alot to think about, maybe we all can take the time now and think about them.

Tony Portland, Oregon Area

What if none of your concerns happened? What if the bad guys shot and killed 4 or 5 people just for fun, WHAT IF you think so much ya just stand there with your gun tucked away and a 5 year old gets killed? What are you going to do when you look in the mirror 3 days later and realize you stood there and did nothing. Ok you don't get sued, I dare you to go public and tell the world you were packing and decided to do nothing. If you don't want to take the risk don't carry, why would you carry and do nothing?
You go ahead and back seat quarterback, your what ifs didn't happen did they, the old man didn't shoot anyone but the bad guys, he is going to take the risk of a law suit, I wish more peole would step up and do this.
Tony, what if you got shot in a robbery and found out there was a guy that was carring but decided to do nothing, what if it was your kid? Play your games all day long, I will deal with what happened not what if. Oh please don't carry cause you will be thinking and doing nothing long after the event is over.

Jim

 

[Grunwald]

I'll just add that just because an armed robber is calm that does not mean that he is harmless. It could in fact mean the exact opposite - the individual is a sociopath or even worse - a psychopath.

 

[MasterDisaster]

I can't believe you actually wrote this, it is nuts. Shoot the Bastards, perhaps if they are dead they will never do it again, next time it might be you or your kids these crooks attack.
Oh yes, Batman doesn't use guns remember? Cops try and arrest the bad guys, this guy did neither. Perhaps your fantasy world should get an adjustment, if you can't see how off your analogy is save the rest of us your insane reality.

This response amazes me. I personally believe we need more level headed gun owners like Burt Gummer, especially when talking about CWL. For example, the reason the Zimmerman case is such an issue is because of Zimmerman's hero complex. No one was in immediate danger until he went vigilante to confront Martin. Granted all accounts show that Martin attacked him, but the attack would not have happened if Zimmerman had followed the dispatchers advice to wait for police. Concealed carry is a last resort, not a means for civilians to fill the role of the police.

From my point of view I would have maybe stepped in and done the same thing as Williams but again thinking of all the things stated above. There is alot to think about, maybe we all can take the time now and think about them.

I completely agree. I believe in gun ownership and self defense, but pulling a trigger in public is an enormous commitment and one that should only be taken in the most dire situations.

Don't think I don't take your questions seriously though. I was on a forum where a member was describing his encounter with two robbers at his bar. The guy had shot one of the robbers and went to shoot the second robber when his best friend went to tackle the guy. The friend got shot in the back of the head and died. He was obviously really upset about the issue and spent about 2 years waiting to see if charges were going to be filed, they weren't, and waiting on his insurance company to settle with his friend's family.

This is way too common unfortunately, which is why I preach gun safety first, and gun rights second. My wife's uncle had a friend who was shot in the head by a 22lr round in up state New York because some local kids were target shooting in a field and didnt realize there were people across from them. My dad accidentally shot his aunt in the leg with a 22lr when he was a kid because his dad didnt warn him the gun was loaded. My coworker was shot through the wall when her neighbor accidentally discharged a 38spec while preparing to clean it. My brother's boss in high school had a friend shot and killed during a camp trip in Alaska because another friend thought he was a bear in the bushs, he had gone out to pee and got shot with a 45acp and bled out in minutes. One of my dads friends got shot in the head with a 22short by someone with a CCW who had lost a bar fight.

Point is, guns are very serious and I find it an immature mentality for people to say things like "I would have brought a bigger gun to put these kid robbers down for good" or to say its stupid to think twice before pulling out a concealed weapon. I personally think that people acting without prior thought will further endanger peoples lives.

What if none of your concerns happened? What if the bad guys shot and killed 4 or 5 people just for fun, WHAT IF you think so much ya just stand there with your gun tucked away and a 5 year old gets killed?

This is an exception to the rule. The ice cream shop I worked at in high school got robbed at gun point by a couple 19 year old kids....you know what happened? They stole a total of $1800 and got caught two blocks down the street after a customer called the police with their license plate. The cops told us the gun was unloaded and they were crying when they got loaded into the police car. No one got hurt, the money was returned, and they both got convicted as adults for armed robbery. I also got threatened with a knife once by a few gang-banger types while collecting carts in the parking lot of a grociery store. They asked me "what the BLEEP are you looking at?" I said, "Sorry, nothing, I dont want any trouble." and they left.



I am a firm supporter of gun rights for the American people, but vigilante justice and such is not what that right is for. It is for self defense, in "US or THEM" situations. Its certainly not for teaching some confused punk kid a lesson, its definitely not a means to say "you messed with the wrong person", and it should never be used when it increases the amount (or potential amount) of danger to those around you.

Gun safety first, gun rights second....and always for responsible use by the responsible and level headed citizen. My two cents.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

When the perps pull out weapons there is usually no alternative.. you either volunteer to be a victim or you take action.. it's your choice

 

[RVTECH]

When the perps pull out weapons there is usually no alternative

To which I completely agree but I think in some situations a bad precedent is being set IE. the recent shootings where the supposed aggressor has no weapon yet winds up getting shot anyway. There are no doubt justifiable cases such as overwhelming numbers, excessive physical ability over lessor where use of a weapon may be justified but this is a whole new arena we are entering, legally and civilly.

 

[Riot]

Interesting criticizing of Mr. Williams' actions...
Defensive Gun Use of the Day: Cyberspace Edition | The Truth About GunsThe Truth About Guns

My response:

Wow, lots of armchair quarterbacks on this one...

If someone points a gun at you, they have displayed "hostile intent". If you are in genuine fear of serious bodily harm or death (for either yourself or another), you may use lethal force to neutralize the threat. This, of course, can be perceived differently from person to person and it cannot be properly assessed from seeing a few video cameras (see "objective reasonableness").

There are three main elements you need to effectively succeed in a violent encounter...

1) Surprise
2) Speed
3) Violence of Action

This man had all three. He did not give either subject an opportunity to return fire, seek cover or move to a position of advantage to take back control of the situation. This, I fear, is where many of you are criticizing Mr. Williams for continuing to shoot at the subjects and advance towards them.

If you give a subject another opportunity to use deadly force on you after you gain the upper hand, then you are a fool. Plain and simple. Mr. Williams is no fool and made sure that the threat was no more before he stopped firing (hence why he stopped at the door and didn't keep chasing them out in the street). He then secures the door and assesses the area. I see nothing wrong with Mr. Williams' actions except for not using a sufficient caliber and shot placement to properly neutralize the threat in the least amount of bullets as possible. Every bullet you fire has the chance of missing your target and gives your target an opportunity to engage you back.

*Riot Out*

 

[lamrith]

To which I completely agree but I think in some situations a bad precedent is being set IE. the recent shootings where the supposed aggressor has no weapon yet winds up getting shot anyway. There are no doubt justifiable cases such as overwhelming numbers, excessive physical ability over lessor where use of a weapon may be justified but this is a whole new arena we are entering, legally and civilly.

Actually we are reverting back to olden times. The last many Decades criminals have realized there is very little risk involved with crime. People in general are defenseless and easy targets as compared to long ago.

Caveman, all the men had a clubs. Medieval times, men all had swords. Jump ahead to 17&1800's and the men all had guns of some sort. Crime in regards to robbery, assault, etc were very low per capita. Killing/murders back then were usually wars, not single person or massacres like we have now. You attack someone they will kill you.. The Risk vs reward made it not worth trying. Fast forward to late 1900's and now 2000's. Gun/weapon ownership per capita is much lower. Laws make it difficult for common citizens to obtain firearms in comparison to the past. Our Moral media has brainwashed the masses to think guns are bad while at the same time the TV and movies are all shooting and objectifying women. The bad guys think this movie behavior is normal while the masses are unarmed and easy prey. We have become Sheeple.

Well The tables are starting to turn, and we need to keep the momentum. Before people freak out, I am not talking everyone go vigilante and start patrolling day and night looking for trouble. The Travon Martin fiasco is a nightmare we do not need to see repeated.

We as a society need to get OUT of our self centered bubbles and start holding each other accountable and LOOK OUT for each other. Treat others as you expect to be treated. Go get training, get your CPL/CHL/etc, become proficient with your weapon and understand the laws of your area. Then GET OUT AND MEET YOUR NEIGHBORS! Get off the couch, off the computer and start connecting, keep each other informed, exchange info, look out for each other. Heck when the neighbors kids throw a party while parents are gone, let the parents know when they get back. Don't be an a55 and bubblegum about being kept up all night and next time your calling the cops. TALK to them, and build a relationship. Let them know you are just trying to help and looking out for them and their family. Our communities are gone because nobody knows thier neighbors anymore, only we can rebuild them. when I was young if I misbehaved in town I knew dad would know by nightfall and I was toast.

It is up to us the govt and police cannot protect us, that is our job.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

To which I completely agree but I think in some situations a bad precedent is being set IE. the recent shootings where the supposed aggressor has no weapon yet winds up getting shot anyway. There are no doubt justifiable cases such as overwhelming numbers, excessive physical ability over lessor where use of a weapon may be justified but this is a whole new arena we are entering, legally and civilly.

Personally I have no problem with any actual attacker (armed or not) of an innocent person being shot.. repeatedly. Legally it's a different ballgame