CCW Holder Defends Self & Wife.

[Lars]

www.kansascity.com | 08/02/2008 | Bank customer shoots man in attempted robbery

One could argue this man should have allowed the suspect to leave with "The Loot" as life is obviously more important than money/credit cards. Telling the robber to stop invited him to a gunfight which may or may not be legal....

Bank customer shoots man in attempted robbery


A bank customer shot another man who apparently was attempting to rob him about 9 a.m. today, police said.
The alleged robber, who was wounded in the head, this afternoon is in stable condition, police said.
A man and a woman, described as an older couple, were using the ATM at the Bank of America at North Oak Trafficway and Barry Road, police said, when a man approached with a gun and robbed them.
A couple was stopped at the ATM.
The robber was walking away when the male victim got out of the car with his gun and yelled for him to stop, said Sgt. Chris Lantz of the department’s robbery unit.
The robber turned around and pointed his gun at the man, Lantz said. The robbery victim fired his gun, hitting the robber in the head, he said.
At the scene investigators earlier today investigators were collecting evidence from a dark sedan parked next to the ATM machine. An object that looked like a hand gun was lying on the pavement. Nearby were apparent blood stains.
The couple and witnesses were interviewed by police.
The man had a permit to carry a concealed gun, Lantz said. Under the circumstances, Lantz said, that would not matter, because he could legally carry the weapon in his car.
It is unusual where a robbery victim defends themselves with a fire arm.
“You don’t see that very often,” Lantz said.
Police ask that anyone who witnessed the incident call the TIPS Hotline, 816-474-TIPS (816) 474-8477.

 

[BloodEclipse]

It will depend on the state laws. The prosecutor will play a big role too. A case could be made that because he was leaving the threat was no longer there.

I'm guessing that a case could also be made that the robbery victim could say "I still felt threatened because he was holding the gun and I wanted to stop him so he didn't get to do this to the next visitor to the ATM." "I was hoping when he saw me armed he would surrender, it was not my intent to shoot the man for robbing me"

 

[pmpmstrb]

What exactly is required to perform a citizen's arrest? Could it be used in a situation like this?

 

[turkeykiller]

He was robed at gun point! Hurray for the older man that shot him, maybe he just saved another life from the next time this scumbag robber went out to rob.

 

[Crystalship1]

Personally... I've got no problem with the man's actions. However, this didn't happen in Texas and I fear for his freedom in this upside-down liberal-infected legal system that they/we have.

 

[haldir]

If he had been in rural MO, I would bet he would be okay. Kansas City though, I dunno. Big cities seem to draw a different sort of prosecutor sometimes. Just like up in my area. I think in Elkhart County he would be okay. St. Joseph County, I wouldn't bet either way.

 

[Ri22o]

The story was confusing as hell, until I figured out they were using a drive-up ATM.

 

[hoosiertriangle]

I believe in Indiana the man could attempt a citizens arrest and using his own gun and instructing an armed felon is a proper use of force. Also, if the victim had followed the felon for the purpose of stopping the felon and arresting him he could have threatened the use of his gun.

You are also permitted to threaten more force than you are legally allowed to bring. The "stop or I'll shoot" is a perfect example. You can threaten to shoot even if you may not have the legal ability to do so. In Indiana you also have the right to stop a forcible felony (of which robbery with a gun qualifies).

An argument could be made that he could have shot the felon even as the felon was leaving the scene.

 

[Bigum1969]

I don't have any clue to the laws in Missouri, but if the bad guy did point his gun at the robbery victim, there is probably a good case for self defense.

But, actually confronting the bad guy as he left could complicate things.

In that situation, I'm not sure what I would've done. I know I would of made sure the bad guy didn't come back, but I'm not sure I'd go after him, especially if my family was in the car.

 

[Caleb]

I thought as soon as the perp no longer shows threats, such as running away or dropping weapon, you can only hold him till police arrives.

 

[turkeykiller]

The robber turned around and pointed his gun at the man, Lantz said. The robbery victim fired his gun, hitting the robber in the head, he said.


I think that justifies !!

 

[Caleb]

The robber turned around and pointed his gun at the man, Lantz said. The robbery victim fired his gun, hitting the robber in the head, he said.


I think that justifies !!

No kidding, what are you going to do...wait for the robber to start shooting at you? Defeating the purpose if you ask me.

 

[DocGlock86]

But didn't he kinda ask for a second go around. Becuase from what I got from the story the robber was actually leaving. I mean I'm not against what he did but as a PA I could say that the man was leaving and was no longer a threat to the family and at that time 911 should have been called.
But I wasn't there so I don't know all the details.

 

[turkeykiller]

But didn't he kinda ask for a second go around. Becuase from what I got from the story the robber was actually leaving. I mean I'm not against what he did but as a PA I could say that the man was leaving and was no longer a threat to the family and at that time 911 should have been called.
But I wasn't there so I don't know all the details.

He was still a threat, he took something that wasn't his at gun point, the victim told him to stop the robber turned to shoot. 911 is for the ambulance!
Give this guy a metal he may have saved someone else's loved one !

Good guy

Robber :fawk:

 

[TRWXXA]

The victim just yelled at the thief to "stop". Not even knowing that the victim was armed, the perp turned and aimed a weapon at what may have been (for all he knew) an unarmed man. He was wrong, and paid the price. Sounds like a righteous shoot to me.

Now the namby-pamby, crybaby, bedwetting liberals at the ACLU will see it another way. They think we should always give criminals what the want. I think we should just give them what they deserve.

 

[turkeykiller]

The victim just yelled at the thief to "stop". Not even knowing that the victim was armed, the perp turned and aimed a weapon at what may have been (for all he knew) an unarmed man. He was wrong, and paid the price. Sounds like a righteous shoot to me.

Now the namby-pamby, crybaby, bedwetting liberals at the ACLU will see it another way. They think we should always give criminals what the want. I think we should just give them what they deserve.

AMEN BROTHER

 

[EdC]

Might be that in Indiana, the shooter might have a problem because the robber was leaving-encounter was over, and I don't think that reasonable person standard would support someone believe that their life was in imminent danger. There's a good reason for that law, and it's not to protect the criminals. Any time violence escalates, bystanders can get hurt.

The shooter new the robber was armed (presumably). What did he think the robber was going to do when he told him to stop? I'm glad the old man won the gunfight that he started, instead of the robber, but the old man used very poor judgment, IMHO. My guess is that in Indiana, he could lose his license to carry for what he did, and I couldn't really disagree with that outcome.

 

[indyjoe]

Might be that in Indiana, the shooter might have a problem because the robber was leaving-encounter was over, and I don't think that reasonable person standard would support someone believe that their life was in imminent danger. There's a good reason for that law, and it's not to protect the criminals. Any time violence escalates, bystanders can get hurt.

The shooter new the robber was armed (presumably). What did he think the robber was going to do when he told him to stop? I'm glad the old man won the gunfight that he started, instead of the robber, but the old man used very poor judgment, IMHO. My guess is that in Indiana, he could lose his license to carry for what he did, and I couldn't really disagree with that outcome.

Justification in Indiana included this phrase: if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony.

I believe what the robber did was commission of a forcible felony.