[LS-208]

Clearly a case of Failure to think before you act. Or maybe just failure to think at all.





http://www.waff.com/Global/story.asp?S=9870013



Worth reading.

 

[atbarr]

That was a bad case of 'head up butt'! He shot across two lanes of traffic

, he's lucky he didn't kill somebody. If,... he has a CCW, he needs to lose it.



A.T.

 

[LS-208]

That was a bad case of 'head up butt'! He shot across two lanes of traffic

, he's lucky he didn't kill somebody. If,... he has a CCW, he needs to lose it.



A.T.

If ignorance were bliss, he must be a very happy man. I hate that idiots like this are the ones that ruin it for the rest of us.

 

[LS-208]

If ignorance were bliss, he must be a very happy man. I hate that idiots like this are the ones that ruin it for the rest of us.

I'm curious to see, but if he's convicted then I'm positive he will lose it.

 

[TxPhantom]

I hope this guy wasn't a lisenced concealed handgun holder, but the way he handeled the situation indicates he was not. Even hand gun safety 101 would have trained him better than to shoot a gun without knowing where the bullet wiil end up. This guy violated all the Gun Safety Rules.





Gun Safety rules refresher;



1: Humans make mistakes.

All guns are ALWAYS LOADED! If someone unloads a gun and hands it to you, they have just handed you a LOADED GUN until you personally prove that it is empty by checking the chamber. If you are handling a gun that you know is "unloaded", it is LOADED until you check it again. Each and every time, no exceptions, no excuses!



There are too many people shot every year with "unloaded" guns. It happens when cleaning an "unloaded gun", it happens when someone points an UNLOADED GUN at someone or themselves, it even happens at gun stores.



2. Humans make mistakes.

Never point the muzzle at anything you do not intend to destroy! Guns are safe, and guns protect lives. They do that by DESTROYING what they are discharged at. They are also indescriminate and will destroy anything or anyone they are discharged at, even by accident. WE are their brains. Do not point a gun at anything you do NOT intend to DESTROY...DESTROY! There's no such thing as a safe gun, only a safe shooter. Please be one.



3. Humans make mistakes.

NEVER put your finger on the trigger unless you are ready to shoot. If your sights are not on the target, there's no reason for your finger on the trigger, right? So DO NOT PUT IT THERE!



Modern guns in good repair will not fire on their own. They don't get in a bad mood and go off because they feel like it. They go off because someone pulled the trigger. If your finger isn't on the trigger, the gun will not go off. Don't put your finger there EVER unless you are ready to fire the shot at that moment. Otherwise, keep that sucker pointed out straight.



4. Humans make mistakes.

Always know where your bullet will go. You can shoot at a target, but the bullet can carry on and kill someone down range unless you know for a fact where that bullet will stop. DO NOT fire unless you know the bullet will stop harmlessly in a backstop and not carry on to injure someone down range.



Thanks again "Plink"

 

[tremiles]

It's difficult because responsible licensed gun owner really really need to be better. More responsible, smarter, we need to hold ourselves to a higher standard to protect EACH OTHERS rights to bear and carry arms.

 

[KRWeiss]

Just a thought. Before we nail this guy to a burning cross shouldn't we wait to get some "real" facts.



Just one example: When a reporter says 2 lanes of traffic, he or she may have seen an empty 2 lane road but, in order to make the story more interesting, wanted the reader to see gridlock and crowds of hysterical pedestrians without actually lying. This didn't occur in a crowded downtown financial district, it was a neighborhood bakery.

 

[dmncrvn007]

Just a thought. Before we nail this guy to a burning cross shouldn't we wait to get some "real" facts.



Just one example: When a reporter says 2 lanes of traffic, he or she may have seen an empty 2 lane road but, in order to make the story more interesting, wanted the reader to see gridlock and crowds of hysterical pedestrians without actually lying. This didn't occur in a crowded downtown financial district, it was a neighborhood bakery.

I had the same thought myself. Although, either way he shouldn't have the fired shots, especially when the robber is running away. I'm not one to defend criminals, but you can't just go around shooting at people who are running away from a crime scene.

 

[KRWeiss]

especially when the robber is running away

Please take this as an observation rather than an argument. Would it make any difference in your mind if the armed robber was running toward him? The article doesn't say and I'm not comfortable condemning without the facts. Would we view this differently if he had stopped the robber in his tracks?



Now for the argument... If a wounded robber had been arrested on scene we would not have heard about this.



I'm reminded again of the Jeanne Assam story. At first some in the press condemned her for carrying a loaded weapon in a church. Now that the facts have come out would you still second guess her decisions, is she irresponsible too or do the ends alone justify the means?

 

[dmncrvn007]

Would it make any difference in your mind if the armed robber was running toward him?

Not necessarily. If the robber had put the gun in a pocket or waistband before fleeing the scene, the bystander would not have known that the robber were armed. If someone were running in my general direction (albeit on the other side of, well, let's call it an empty street) holding a bag of money or something, I would not be inclined to shoot the guy. I might chase him, but I wouldn't risk people's lives over it. But I think your earlier observation was correct, we should wait to nitpick the case before getting all the facts.



As for the argument, if the robber had been wounded or killed who knows whether or not we would have heard about it. One thing is for certain though: that bystander would have his gun confiscated pending an investigation which would probably result in a criminal trial. Given that the robber was on the other side of a street (assuming he was running away from the scene and not pointing his gun at other bystanders), a city prosecutor could easily indict the bystander for reckless endangerment, and probably a lot more. Then there's the civil suit. Regardless, the guy who shot the robber would spend the next few years of his life in and out of courts.



I agree Jeanne Assam kind of got the shaft in the media. However you're comparing apples to oranges. When Matt Murray walked into New Life, his intent was to kill as many people as possible and he had the means to do so. The armed robber of this story is just the opposite; he was trying to get AWAY after a successful, no-fatality crime. There's a pretty slim chance that anyone was in mortal danger when the bystander pulled out a gun and started shooting.



Let's consider a final hypothetical: if this armed robber had walked in and started shooting, and the bystander ran across the street and shot the robber dead, then that would bear a much more striking resemblance to the Jeanne Assam situation. Not only that, but he would not likely be charged with anything.

 

[superstratjunky]

But if it is true (just saying) it dose not do us any good!

 

[HighPockets]

None the less, at this point the negative impact on responsible gun ownership has been done. Chances are that even if more favorable information comes forth it won't be as widely reported as the first story.



We are just debating after the fact. If the man felt the need to take out his firearm and use it, chances are things were a little bit different than they appear.



Be thankful that no good guys were injured, and pray the bad guy gets caught before he does something like this again.

 

[LordRahl]

Just a thought. Before we nail this guy to a burning cross shouldn't we wait to get some "real" facts.



Just one example: When a reporter says 2 lanes of traffic, he or she may have seen an empty 2 lane road but, in order to make the story more interesting, wanted the reader to see gridlock and crowds of hysterical pedestrians without actually lying. This didn't occur in a crowded downtown financial district, it was a neighborhood bakery.

Irregardless, according to the news article, the robber was running away. Now I am not sure about the laws regarding deadly force in Alabama, but in most places it can only be used if yours or someone else's life is in immediate danger. If this is in fact the case in Alabama, the witness who fired on the robber was wrong.

 

[bah humbug]

Citizens who carry are not LEO. Assuming this article is accurate, most citizens do not have the training to accurately shoot at that distance especially at a moving target. The bystander should have shot the BG with a camera and not a handgun.



Incidents like this just add more fuel to the anti-gun movement.

 

[Garrum]

Citizens who carry are not LEO. Assuming this article is accurate, most citizens do not have the training to accurately shoot at that distance especially at a moving target.

Wisdom of this particular shooting aside, having done a fair bit of shooting with cops in the past, and some military too, (just line guys, not spec-ops), I am of the opinion that 90% of them are worse shooters than me (and probably everyone on this board too), and I'm not one of these shooting school fanatics either. Most of them yank their triggers like they are trying to hook a fish, and use arcane firing grips like off hand under-butt w/crossed thumbs. And don't ever try and offer any help on their shooting style/grip/anything, cause they WILL get very snotty, and point out that "they have had TRAINING, unlike YOU." I stopped saying anything after the first couple of times of that nonsense.

 

[KRWeiss]

Irregardless {sic}, according to the news article, the robber was running away.

Although you can read it that way if you want that's not what the article says:



"Police officials said some bystanders working across the street from the store saw the robbery and tried to intervene. Officers say one of the bystanders yelled at the robber to stop and fired several shots at him. One of the gunshots hit the back of a house nearby."



Multiple bystanders "saw the robbery and tried to intervene", no running away implied, interrupting the criminal before the violence escalated.

 

[CMc]

Good Grief. Not much to add. That was crazy.



Thanks for the story, we heard nothing about it in Birmingham.



Be Safe,

Chuck

 

[evnash]

wow crazy story. i actually live two blocks from here...yeah i pass that store every day going to work.