Victim Shoots Robber in Self Defense

[Fountain79]

KANSAS CITY, Mo. – The teenager who was shot in the head as he allegedly tried to rob a Northland couple was listed in critical but stable condition at a metro hospital.

Charges were expected to be filed this week against the 17-year-old male, Kansas City Police said Monday.

According to police, officers were called Saturday to the Bank of America, 8320 North Oak Trafficway, in regard to a shooting just before 9 a.m.

http://www.nbcactionnews.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=e267d284-68c0-422c-acae-f0fe44acbaff

[flvegan]

1. If everything is as stated...nice fucking shot.

[rpannier]

2. Agreed

[cliffordu]

7. Yep. Should have used a bigger slug. I likes the .45 ACP, M'self.

edit for typo stupidness

[flvegan]

11. I still have .45 Black Talons in my Colt.

Take a head clear off, I reckon.

[cliffordu]

12. Yep. At that range, all that's left to do is get the shovel and the hose.

[spin]

48. The "Black Talon" is still made today under a different name...

Winchester voluntarily pulled the ammunition from the market completely in 2000. The "Ranger SXT" ammunition sold today by Winchester is essentially the same ammunition without the black Lubalox coating on the bullet. Among shooters, the running joke is that SXT stands for "Same eXact Thing." It is often called a "Meat Cutter" this name possibly could refer to the jacket barbs digging into the flesh (like a fish hook barb) when surgeons try to remove the projectile.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Talon

Winchester restricts the sale of this ammo to LEO and Military, but this is a Winchester rule not a law. There is no law prohibiting possession or use of this ammunition.
http://www.tds-us.com/viewitem.php/tds/pd884916/WINCHESTER_RANGER_RA9T_Talon_-_.9mm_147grn_SXT

Original Black Talon rounds command a high price today because of their reputation.

The redesigned Ranger SXT still had the fangs and black bullet, but Winchester knew that ballistically they could do better than that. So next came the Ranger-T series which is the current production.

The Ranger-T redesign still has the fangs but the bullet is now copper colored. This round is one of the best SD rounds on the market. When I say "best" I'm not merely referring to a round that feeds well, I'm talking about everything you truly expect from a SD round. It has proven to perform very well in properly conducted ballistics tests with consistent expansion and penetration. There are no honest criticisms of this design. Its pretty impressive.
http://californiaccw.org/posts/list/803.page

[Guaranteed]

3. Agreed. Dude threatened him with a gun. Dude got shot.

I'm usually skeptical of concealed carries, but I'd really like to see someone try to argue with the old man in this case.

[onetinsoldier]

34. my 2 cents

agreed

[greenvpi]

4. Paper used the word victim for the wrong person

Papers in the UK usually get that right. The ones here are too biases. The poor kid was the victim of the violent idiot that escalated the violence.

[tammywammy]

6. No they didn't

The kid is the one that "escalated" things when he pointed a gun to the wife's head while trying to rob them.

[Hugabear]

10. Drive-thru?

Seems to me the easiest solution would be to try and speed away. Getting out of the car with a gun could very easily have gotten both the husband and his wife shot.

[tammywammy]

13. He didn't, and it's clearly self-defense.

The robber should rethink his choice of profession.

[Guaranteed]

14. Well, there's no fool-proof way of getting out of a situation where someone

has a gun to your head.

And driving away gives the robber a few seconds to take pot shots at you.

Further, your logic seems to imply that in ANY given threatening situation, the only proper thing to do is run, no matter the level of threat. That's incorrect.

And, finally, given the gravity of the situation, the couple were totally within their rights to handle it as they saw fit. The robber, threatening to kill the woman, had momentarily given up all- every single one- of his rights.

[flvegan]

15. Speed away while some shit pumps rounds into your car?

Which Koenigsegg was the fella driving?

Could have, yes. But didn't.

Sorry, I don't believe in violence but I believe less in letting my wife getting her brains blown out.

[spin]

39. I knew a man who drove away from a carjacking...

He was stopped at a traffic light when a bad guy walked up to his open window and pointed a gun at his head.

Fortunately he was the only car at the light. He told the bad guy "F U" stomped the accelerator and blew threw through the red light. No traffic was coming.

Had he decided to get out of the car, he would have pulled the .22 mag J-frame S&W revolver he always carried on his belt, shoved it into the bad guy's stomach and given him a bad case of acid indigestion.

All is well that ends well. His shooting the bad guy would have been entirely justified in Florida as he has a concealed carry permit. But then there is the possibility that he would have also been shot.

[LisaL]

16. In case somebody points a gun to your head, by all means,

try that. The victim in this case had a gun and obviously he was a good shot.

[Hugabear]

17. Think about the situation here...

The guy had time to get out of his car with his gun to confront the robber.

I have no problem with self defense, but in this situation it could have very easily gone the other way.

[tammywammy]

18. And in the few seconds pulling away the robber could have easily shot the wife in the head

:shrug:

[cliffordu]

19. That is the risk you take.

I do have to say that the old man has nerves of steel.

[LisaL]

21. I wonder if he has a military or police background.

Not everyone could have pulled this off.

[benEzra]

25. Or hunting, or competitive shooting, or just decades of practice.

Possibly a combination of several of the above.

[TahitiNut]

50. Do you agree with my post #36??

[LisaL]

20. It didn't. Seems like the old man knew what he was doing.

[TahitiNut]

36. The correct tactical decision was to "spread out".

In this particular case a single armed gunman assaulted two people. If they try to flee, the chances are very good one or both will die (shooting fish in an initially slow-moving barrel) ... even more than the chances the shooter will kill the wife BEFORE the husband puts distance between himself and his wife. The 'flight' of his targets actually emboldens an assaulting gunman. (It's consistent with his general expectations: that they cower or flee. He does NOT expect 'fight.') By creating that distance (instead of getting closer), the assaulting gunman is faced with a more difficult consequence of his act. He's also forced to consider a HIGHER priority target (the husband) and, in the process of making that choice, loses his initial advantage. In that moment of indecision, as he attempted to shift his aim, he effectively surrendered his right to life.

IF - and I emphasize IF(!) - the gunman immediately dropped his weapon and recognized he wasn't at a turkey shoot any more, HE would have made a 'correct' decision ... but he didn't. He's meat.

These are SHIT situations ... what ain't taught in public school or at your mother's knee from a book by Amy Vanderbilt. Ethics and propriety and civility and lots of other "good stuff" just don't apply. The "rules" of combat and self-defense and individual tactics become the sole determinant of who will live and whose life is punctuated abruptly.

One can hope and pray and put one's life at risk for the principle of non-violence, drawing a line and not crossing it ... and some would choose to do so. At the same time, one can choose to adhere to sound combat tactics and do what the husband did. BOTH are ethically justifiable choices. BOTH.

NEITHER has a "good" outcome. I repeat: NEITHER approach results in "good." If anyone thinks a sane and emotionally healthy human bing does not incur a great TOLL from having to act in a combat situation, they're fucking deluded. Soldiers get PTSD for a reason ... and one of the reasons is that THEY survived and the "other guy" died! (Stop and think about it fer crissakes.)

Some DUers just love to climb the "pragmatist" molehill and claim King of the Mountain ... but here's where real "pragmatism" hits the road. Believe me ... it became a "no-win" situation as soon as the gunman decided he was going to threaten a human being.


Nobody has to take my word for this. There are others (many DUers) with more combat training than I. Make no mistake. Like it or not, it damned well IS combat. Deny it and die. It's a choice. There are, I believe, worse things than dying ... and things worth dying for. It's a choice. Choices are best made informed.

[spin]

40. Great post...a must read ...

[TahitiNut]

42. Thanks. (It was a long time coming.)

So often we have such 'discussions' and the postures become so predictable ... and simplistic. I have no illusions that finally assembling such a post will do much other than help those already almost so inclined to perhaps think it's not quite as cut and dried as some might pretend. We make choices ... and the ones we might make don't make the ones others make 'wrong.' Not necessarily.

But I (finally) thought I might just try to provoke such thought ... among those willing and able. If any. :shrug:

[TommyO]

8. The "poor kid" had a gun to a woman's head

I would hardly call him the victim here, unless you're considering him a victim of his own stupidity.

[Guaranteed]

9. That's total garbage. This is as clear a case of self-defense as you can get.

You don't threaten people with guns. Someone you threaten with a gun has every right to shoot you before you shoot them.


I don't want to accuse you of being a freeper, but what you just said is just the type of thing that makes us look bad. You need to rethink your position.

[benEzra]

24. Sarcasm, I hope? (n/t)

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

33. "Poor kid"?

Wow.......just, wow........

[cobalt1999]

47. I don't buy your act.

Probably some freeper trying to keep up the lie that democrats only care about the criminals. No real Democrat is that stupid...you're a plant.

[tammywammy]

5. Sounds pretty open and shut

[tblue37]

22. Good. n/t

[book_worm]

23. Well, the robber now knows the down side of his profession.

[mitchum]

26. Close enough

[RamboLiberal]

27. Good for the old man - glad he was a good shot n/t

[SmileyRose]

28. 50 cents says the old man will get sued by the boy's family.

and the kid's grandma will be on TV telling everyone he was trying to turn his life around.

I hate these stories. No one wins.

[Rage for Order]

29. Chalk one up for the good guys

:applause:

[Canuckistanian]

30. I don't care who loses in a civilian gunfight

If you're armed, expect a 50/50 chance to be shot by an agressor is such a situation.

[Rage for Order]

31. Neither do I

Because clearly, the couple who were patronizing their bank via the drive thru were just as much at fault for this guy trying to kill them as was the man who defended his own life and that of his wife. They should have just stayed at home and used online banking and none of this would have ever happened. What assholes this married couple are! :eyes:

[Canuckistanian]

32. Flame away. I don't care.

My country's death by gunfire beats yours.

"Homicide rates tend to be related to firearm ownership levels. Everything else being equal, a reduction in the percentage of households owning firearms should occasion a drop in the homicide rate".
-Evidence to the Cullen Inquiry 1996: Thomas Gabor, Professor of Criminology - University of Ottawa

[Rage for Order]

35. It may have a bit to do with culture as well

But I'm just venturing a guess. Can I ask, what do you think is a good self-defense strategy if someone points a gun at your spouse's (or loved one's) head?

[Canuckistanian]

37. "Self-defense" wouldn't be necessary in a world where guns aren't ubiquitous

I don't live in a world where guns are EVERYWHERE.

And as a consequence, being hit by an intentional (or stray) bullet doesn't haunt my every waking hour.

I put up with a lot of unusual concepts here at DU, what with me being a foreigner and all. But America's gun culture worries me.

I hear the same arguments from die-hard progressives that I hear from the bona fide gun nuts. "my gun makes me safer" "I need to defend myself" "The Second Amendment is untouchable".

Meanwhile, Americans die by the dozens every day.

The disconnect is astounding.

Sorry, didn't mean to rant on like this, but I LIKE gun control. It works. And no one has to die because of it.

[Rage for Order]

38. Being hit by a bullet hardly ever enters my mind either

Half of the gun deaths in the US are due to suicide. Of the remaining gun deaths, I'd venture to say (just guessing here) that half of those are due to one criminal killing another. It becomes an issue when innocent bystanders end up in the wrong place at the wrong time. Fortunately the innocent bystander came out ahead this time.

[spin]

41. You are fortunate to live where you do...

it probably is similar to the U.S. in the 50's and 60's. The people who owned guns were mainly hunters, target shooters and of course some criminals.

The culture changed after the Vietnam war. We developed a drug problem and launched a war against it. Unfortunately our efforts to control the drug problem have proved futile. Gangs that dealt drugs and profited from them grew more and more violent and the addicted often turned to crime to finance their habit.

We also failed to solve other societal problems such as poor education, lack of opportunity and racism. Our media portrayed gang culture in a manner that glorified it leading many to buy into the life style.

Firearms were a important tool of the gang culture and acts like "drive by shootings" became more common. Our society became more and more dysfunctional.

If draconian gun laws aimed at banning firearms such as handguns were enacted many honest people would comply but the criminal element would ignore them. The result would be a more dangerous society with honest people unarmed prey for the dishonest. Violence would increase, not decrease. It's almost impossible to remove weapons from our society. If someone could invent a magic wand that would make firearms disappear we might be able to start over. Unfortunately guns would be smuggled in and shortly honest citizens would again find themselves at the mercy of the criminals.

Gun control was a popular movement for quite a long time, but people woke up to the fact that it would never work. Many states passed laws that allowed honest citizens to possess and even carry weapons concealed. This did reduce crime in some states, especially Florida, but the result is hard to determine in other states.

Politicians loved gun control. The Democratic Party could push for new gun restrictions and the Republican Party could count on votes when they opposed it. It was great political theater but little was accomplished. All that really happened was the politicians were able to avoid addressing the root causes of violence. Those problems are very difficult and expensive to solve and are just not as newsworthy as fighting over gun control. Politicians in the United States love to generate a lot of hot air, but rarely accomplish anything.

[Cid_B]

43. Meh...

The thought of a stray bullet or an intentional one doesnt haunt my every waking hour and getting shot at is in my job description. Living in fear is a waste of time.

[Angleae]

44. Your graph isn't homocide rates.

It even says on it "Intentional firearm deaths". Kind of misleading. I also noticed that it only has two non-european countries on it on top of what appears to be a negative rate for japan which isn't even possible. Here are the homocide rates with a few more countries.

Venezuela (65)
El Salvador (55.3)
Honduras (49.9)
Jamaica (49)
Guatemala (45.2)
South Africa (38.6)
Colombia (37.3)
Belize (30.8)
Trinidad and Tobago (30.38)
Brazil (27)
Ecuador (18.33)
Russia (16.5)
Swaziland (13.63)
Mexico (13.04)
Mongolia (12.81)
Paraguay (12.05)
Haiti (11.5)
Suriname (10.30)
Panama (9.56)
Argentina (9.47)
Lithuania (9.38)
Papua New Guinea (9.06)
Latvia (8.58)
Thailand (8.47)
Zimbabwe (8.44)
Belarus (8.31)
Kyrgyzstan (8.01)
Zambia (7.89)
Barbados (7.49)
Ukraine (7.42)
Puerto Rico (7.40)
Seychelles (7.39)
Uganda (7.37)
Pakistan (6.86)
Estonia (6.82)
Moldova (6.71)
Sri Lanka (6.69)
Namibia (6.35)
Costa Rica (6.23)
Georgia (6.22)
United States (5.7)
Albania (5.68)
Uruguay (5.64)
Peru (5.54)
Philippines (4.31)
Côte d'Ivoire (4.07)
Palestine (4.04)
Yemen (3.98)
Turkey (3.83)
Nepal (3.42)
Spain (3.35)
Bulgaria (3.08)
Switzerland (2.94)
Iran (2.93)
Bolivia (2.82)
Finland (2.75)
Dominica (2.74)
Israel (2.62)
Scotland (2.56)
Mauritius (2.51)
Armenia (2.48)
Northern Ireland (2.48)
Azerbaijan (2.41)
Sweden (2.39)
Romania (2.37)
Malaysia (2.36)
Republic of Macedonia (2.31)
Slovakia (2.26)
Czech Republic (2.22)
South Korea (2.18)
Hungary (2.09)
United Kingsom (2.03)
Canada (1.85)
Croatia (1.83)
Portugal (1.79)
Malta (1.75)
Chile (1.71)
Cyprus (1.70)
Poland (1.64)
France (1.64)
England (1.62)
Bermuda (1.56)
Belgium (1.50)
Slovenia (1.47)
Algeria (1.39)
Brunei (1.37)
New Zealand (1.29)
Australia (1.28)
Maldives (1.28)
Italy (1.23)
Tunisia (1.22)
Syria (1.14)
Japan (1.10)
Indonesia (1.05)
Iceland (1.03)
Kuwait (0.99)
Germany (0.98)
Bahrain (0.98)
Netherlands (0.97)
Saudi Arabia (0.92)
Ireland (0.91)
Luxembourg (0.90)
Austria (0.81)
Denmark (0.79)
Norway (0.78)
Qatar (0.77)
Greece (0.76)
United Arab Emirates (0.63)
Hong Kong (0.63)
Oman (0.59)
Singapore (0.49)
Morocco (0.47)
Burma (0.19)

[aikoaiko]

46. I care, I care more about the innocent victims of the criminal and his threats.

[aikoaiko]

45. Good folks who carry guns just want a fighting chance to defend themselves from criminals

Its never wrong to fight back against someone trying to threaten you with violence and harm. Of course, fighting back is sometimes risky, but I'm glad this couple was not hurt.

I'm sure there are some DUers who are amazed (perhaps even chagrin) that the husband was able to draw and shoot first given the criminal had his gun out and that there weren't bystander victims.

In some states, recent Stand Your Ground laws specifically protect self-defense shooters from any lawsuits because it was a self-defense shooting - but I don't know about MO. I encourage you all to have laws like that to protect the good guys.

[isentropic]

49. Good for him. If people would shoot more thugs, crime would decrease!

:D

[varkam]

51. I'm glad that he's stable.

I'm also glad that he didn't hurt either the man or his wife.