Customer shoots two armed robbers at Internet cafe.

[GreenStormCloud]

http://www.gainesville.com/article/20120714/ARTICLES/120719763

The article is too long to post sections of it - too much stuff would be left out, so I will summarize.

The internet cafe had about 30 customers in it. At about 9:45PM two men wearing ski masks, (Both age 19.) one armed with a .45 handgun and the other with a baseball bat entered the cafe. They demanded that all the customers get down on the floor and take their wallets out. The one with the baseball bat smashed a computer. The guy with the gun turned to deal with the cashier, presenting his back to the customers, depending upon the robber with the bat to control the customers. One customer drew his own gun and opened fire, shooting multiple rounds, hitting one robber superficially in the arm, the other robber twice in the butt - once each cheek. They were arrested when they went to a friend's house to get medical treatment. (The friend called the police.)

The shooter will not be charged, police said.

Hours after his release from the hospital, Henderson, who talked about the pain he feels in his buttock and hip, said the plan was to "barge in, get the money and leave." He said "he never expected anyone to be armed."

IIRC, FL has about 3% of the adult population that has CCW. If one assumes about 30 adults in the place then there is about a 65% probability that someone will be armed.

"The gun was broken and rusty and wasn't loaded. Nobody was going to get hurt," he said, standing with crutches.

So what? He did a very good job of convincing some of the customers (probably all) that he was armed and dangerous to their lives.

The CCWer did not hit any innocent people.

[permatex]

1. What a couple of morons.

Glad no innocent customers were injured.
Now they'll, (hopefully) do some hard time for armed robbery, and an xtra 25 years for being idiots.

Can't wait to hear about how the armed customer was a "gun totin cowboy who practiced his quick draw in front of a mirror and then shoved a gun or two down his pants and then walked out of his house with the intention of shooting someone so he could become judge, jury, and executioner".

Love those Archives.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

2. two dumbass nineteen y/o did a very stupid, stupid thing. a fucking ball bat!

and a rusty old gun. why on earth did they need money so badly? drugs? sad. dumb.

[permatex]

3. Probably to go buy a gun that worked

so next time they could actually shoot someone. They were definitely on the shallow side of the gene pool.
My favorite statement was the dumbass who said, I didn't think anyone would be armed, well, guess what? Surprise, you win the stupid of the day award.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

4. I wonder if they were high on drugs or trying to get money for drugs. where are their parents?

a fucking ball bat. I can't get past that.

[HALO141]

112. In a land of hoyts,

the man with a baseball bat is king.

[oneshooter]

5. I am waiting to hear from those that will say

The gun would not work and the other only had a baseball bat, therefore he should not have shot them. Only used his"natural fighting skills, a hot latte and a chair to defeat them.

[rl6214]

7. You forgot about the can of pork and beans and the bicycle wheel...

[oneshooter]

8. Only you and hoyt would carry such things into a Internet Cafe.

The rest of us know better. They don't conceal well at all.

[rl6214]

56. Why would I carry a can of pork and beans and a bicycle wheel into an Internet Cafe?

[oneshooter]

57. Because you mentioned it first.

[rl6214]

58. No, actually hoyt mentioned it first in a thread weeks ago, I'm just replaying it

I've got a CCL so I choose a little more concealable weapon to defend myself.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

48. Well maybe he should have only shot the baseball-bat-carrying robber once.

If he would have shot him only once, the shootee would have been reduced to limping around in a circle and saying such things as "Ow, Ow, Ow."

[shadowrider]

50. No good. He was unarmed (A bat doesn't count as a weapon, has to be a gun)

Ask around.

[4th law of robotics]

6. It is ridiculous that in 2012 in a supposedly modern nation these sorts of things still happen

seriously, there are still internet cafes?

Why?!?!?

[Lizzie Poppet]

9. Well played, sir or madam...well played!

[Hoyt]

10. Where did the rest of our cowboy's bullets land?

[Clames]

11. Didn't read the article did you.

States nobody but the robbers were injured. Pretty self explanatory that the bullets either lodged in the ass of one of the robbers or deposited itself without injury to an innocent.

[Hoyt]

14. Oh I read article -- guy had inoperable gun, another a bat -- cowboy out to save his ass opened fire

Last edited Sun Jul 15, 2012, 02:56 PM - Edit history (1)

in busy store missing robbers as often as hitting them. Now is that the kind of crap gun carriers think is safe? Or do I have to produce a study that shows that when some cowboy opens fire, misses in a crowded store and shoots through the door toward street, that some innocent people are in danger?

[bFact are: robbers didn't shoot anyone, probably couldn't have with old gun, cowboy opened fire, barely hit robbers, missed a number of times, and while no innocents were hit (that we know of) cowboy's action put innocent people at more risk than the bumbling robbers.

I know that's not how you guys want the story told -- but them is facts, read for yourself.

Another fact is that you guys get all excited when a gun toter shoots someone, that you don't question whether the outcome could have been worse because of the presence of a gun toter.

Or, more likely -- and this is an opinion -- you guys don't care. If the cowboy had hit an innocent, you would have just said that one of the lessons their instructor taught (like an instructor knows what the hell they are talking about) was to be sure of your target. Or you'd say two "gang bangers" are off the street.

[shadowrider]

16. Who cares if the gun was inoperable? He walked in with it.

Do we now have to question the guy and ask if his gun will shoot real bullets in order to satisfy you?

[permatex]

18. In the world of hoyt

of course we do.

[shadowrider]

20. Heh

Citizen to bad guy: Excuse me sir, but you've busted in here with the intent of robbing us while holding a gun. May I inquire as to the operational state of that weapon? I'm asking because I have a working gun, but before I shoot, I need to know if you're bluffing. First, though, I'll throw a can of beans at you and speak in a stern voice to get you to quit before I shoot.

[thelordofhell]

52. Heh Heh

[Hoyt]

62. I know, creed of gun culture: never miss opportunity to shoot living targets AND

endanger innocent bystanders.

[Clames]

69. Creed of Hoyt: never miss an opportunity to misrepresent and falsely accuse.

[permatex]

70. It would seem to be what he does best.

Hey, at least he's good at something. What I don't understand is why he posts all that when he knows just about every post can be proven a lie, a misrepresentation, or can easily refuted.

[Clames]

71. Trolling or he thinks he is his post count here.

Some people just have serious issues. Maybe it's a way of coping...

[Hoyt]

73. "Prove it."

[permatex]

75. Thats not hard at all

All one has to do is read anything you've posted here.

[Hoyt]

78. Shiite, even Weaver -- with "I gotta go to the bathroom, bad" -- does better than that.

[permatex]

80. Sorry Hoyt

your not going to bait me into saying something that will get my post hidden. I've proven my point as everyone here can see by your own words. I've actually provided links which is something you have failed to do, so on that note, we are done here. I won't play your little weaver, zimmerman or whoever else game.

[Hoyt]

82. The only thing you've "proven" would get my post hidden if I mentioned it.

[permatex]

84. Struck a nerve didn't I?

[friendly_iconoclast]

92. "Sometimes things are clear without the need to study them"

Who was it that said that, again?

[permatex]

17. You actually produce a link or proof?

. Ok, I'll call your bluff, post a link to such a study.

[oneshooter]

39. hoyt you are soooooo predictable. See post#5.

[PavePusher]

53. We should have a running pool on reponse times....

as it's not a question of if, but merely when....

[Hoyt]

77. One shooter, if you had been there, would you have opened up with that many misses endangering

innocent bystanders?

As it turns out, the victims were not in any more danger of being harmed than the innocent bystanders the dumb-assed shooter endangered by firing away like a cowboy in unpopulated area. He missed more times than he hit, at close range.

That is not a responsible gun carrier -- too nervous and too stupid.

[permatex]

83. And the LEGAL CCW'er knew that how?

Were you there? How do you know what he percieved? Obviously the police didn't think he did anything that warranted an arrest at that time, did they?

[Hoyt]

90. Were you there? If he had hit innocent bystander, what would say?

[permatex]

91. But he didn't did he?

What would I say, I would say that it's the POS thugs who initiated the whole thing and they should be charged accordingly. Your always condemning the legal gun owner and never placing the blame where it belongs, with the thugs, why is that?
Protecting your fellow robbers? Just a guess.

[friendly_iconoclast]

87. So now you do remote sensing, too? I've read about people like you:

[MainlyLurking]

95. If the bystanders were in just as much danger

How is it that the bad guys got hit by three shots and all of those innocent bystanders got hit by none?
The odds and facts simply do not support your position.

[Hoyt]

96. Good, go blasting away in the same situation. Responsible gunners would question your shooting,

as would those who would always question use of guns by those most concerned with savings their own rear.

[permatex]

99. Didn't answer the question didja?

Responsible gun owners, of whom I am one, won't question the shooting.
As far as "blasting away in the same situation" you weren't there, were you? You have no idea what prompted the man to draw his LEGALLY carried weapon and shoot and guess what?
He didn't hit anyone else but the two punks who started the whole sequence of events.

[Hoyt]

100. You weren't there either. All you know is gun involved, so you are happy whatever gun toter did.

No he did not hit anyone else, and the two "punks" did not either.

He could have hit an innocent though since he apparently is like many of you -- can't shoot straight in heat of situation despite all the effing training at playing cowboy.

[permatex]

102. I'd say he did a pretty good job at shooting straight.

How do you know that he didn't hit what he wanted? Maybe he did exactly what we're trained to do, shoot to stop the threat. Sounds like thats exactly what he did, once the little thugs left, the threat was over, notice he didn't follow them, didn't try to apprehend them? He did exactly what he was trained to do.
He didn't play cowboy, he didn't hit an innocent bystander, he didn't chase them out the door, he waited for police to arrive, bottom line, he did everything right.
Playing cowboy, what a crock of crap.

BTW, I never once claimed I was there, thats why, unlike you, I'm not second guessing his actions. He was there, he percieved a deadly threat and determined that force was needed to stop the deadly threat, so unless you have info of wrongdoing by the citizen, you have nothing.

[Hoyt]

103. "He perceived a deadly threat." Well, Permatex, maybe he was wrong -- gun lovers are many times.

[permatex]

105. In this case he wasn't now, was he?

just because the dirtbag's gun was inoperable, how was he to know that?

Back to your normal little insults I see, I was wondering how long it would take?
Like I said, neither you nor I were there, but, unlike you, I'm not second guessing him.

Gee, funny thing also, the shooter will NOT be charged.
Guess the cops and DA thought he was justified also.

[friendly_iconoclast]

116. And *that's* the nub of the gist, claimed powers of remote sensing aside...

[friendly_iconoclast]

119. Hoyt, are you perchance Jim Channon? If so, it would explain a lot...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Channon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Earth_Battalion

The Warrior Monk Ethos

Service members of the First Earth Battalion would practice meditation, yogic cat stretches and primal screams to attain battle-readiness, and use tui na or shiatsu as battlefield first aid. First Earth Battalion trainees would learn to fast for a week drinking only juice and then eat only nuts and grains for a month. They would be able to: fall in love with everyone, realize the different paths of spirit, perceive the auras of living organisms, attain the power to pass through objects such as walls (phasing), bend metal by using the power of the mind (i.e. psychokinesis), walk on fire, operate based on spirit communications (e.g. mediumship), become a peacemaker, actually change a violent pattern in the world (e.g. the Maharishi Effect), organize a tree plant with kids, calculate faster than a computer, control their heart rate—including making it stop—with no ill effects, intuit information from the past (retrocognition) or future (precognition), have out-of-body experiences, live off nature for twenty days, be 90%+ a vegetarian, and be able to intuit other people's thoughts and feelings via telepathy[5] LTC Channon coined the term "warrior monk" for these new service members of the First Earth Battalion,[6] which is anyone who has the presence, service and dedication of a monk and the absolute skill and precision of a warrior. In “The Warrior Monk’s Vision,” Channon imagined an Army made up of awakened warriors.[7] Channon’s ideal warrior monk would be proficient at every level of force.[8] The warrior monk will learn different self-defense systems of martial arts (such as taiji, aikido, etc.), which are based on the notion of using the force of their attackers against themselves. To alleviate negative stressors and promote healing in self and others, the warrior monk will employ various affirmation, relaxation and visualization techniques, as well as a number of methods like yoga[9] qigong and reiki[10] to help strengthen and improve the mind/body connection with spirit.

[bongbong]

151. Careful with permatex

In another thread he informed me that, indeed, he is a "tough guy" (his words), and that he's "forgotten more than I [bongbong] know".

You get a double threat with some gun religionists - tough AND smart.

Oh, and let's not forget that they're highly sensitive, as they constantly alert on posts that offend their delicate sensibilities.

[permatex]

161. No threat at all

If you take it that way, too bad, not my problem.
As explained before, I haven't alerted on any of your posts, I'd rather leave them there so people can see for themselves just how juvenile you really are.

But thanks for playing.

[bongbong]

163. Thou Protesteth Too Much

Where did I say you're a threat? Being careful with somebody isn't calling them a threat.

Come on, "tough guy" (your own words), as you gun-religionists like to post over-n-over, PROVE IT!

[permatex]

167. I rest my case.

[bongbong]

175. LOL

Yes, it looks like you never read Shakespeare, too.

Wasting too many man-years drooling over death-machine guns makes you miss out on life, "tough guy".



BTW, if you're a "tough guy" (as you call yourself), and you need to have a gun to feel safe in public, what does that make me? I don't need a gun to feel safe in public, so I must be a "SUPER DUPER tough guy"!

[AtheistCrusader]

154. A police officer would have shot him right then and there as well.

So, meh.

(And the police have a FAR worse hit ratio than this old guy did)

[NewMoonTherian]

164. How do you define "many"? n/t

[sarisataka]

123. Maybe he should have

disarmed the punks, disassembled the gun and bat, threw the pieces into a nearby potted plant and held them so the police could check their papers.
If the punks became aggressive a can of coffee bean could have been employed.

[PavePusher]

109. "...would you have opened up with that many misses endangering innocent bystanders?"

"He missed more times than he hit, at close range."

Since there is no mention in the article of total number of shots fired, or of any misses, we'll just chalk this up to another case of you making shit up.


"As it turns out, the victims were not in any more danger of being harmed..."

Your after-fact omnicience and prescience is truely awe-inspiring. You should apply it to something useful. Like... garden fertilizing.

[oneshooter]

144. Two each, COM, and stand ready to continue.

Ya see I have done that before, I do not miss.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

And how many cans of beans would you require to subdue them?

[Hoyt]

146. You'll never know, but I'm sure I and others could have found a way to handle these clowns

without needing a gun.

[permatex]

147. Yeah

you would have thrown a can of beans or a bicycle tire at them, or, you would have snatched the gun away from the thug, dismantled it and thrown it in the nearest bushes.

[Hoyt]

149. Might have just popped a bag and watch em mess the floor.

By the way, when are you going to respond to the latest news on 17 year old girl thread where you were cheering/defending the "homeowner" who shot her. Sounds like he was a drug dealer AND she sold him the gun days before.

Whatever you think I would have done, at least I don't have to strap a gun on to go outside.

[permatex]

150. Cheering, no

defending, yes. What they were doing is irrelevent, those three still went there with the intent to rob them. That she was killed is her and her fault alone.

[permatex]

168. Well Hoyt, your always complaining about people stuffing a gun or two down their pants

This one's just for you

[Hoyt]

169. She could probably keep me off this group for awhile. We just wouldn't do gun talk.

Got a link?

[permatex]

170. Google funny gun control signs.

[Hoyt]

171. I gotta admit, if you can't walk out of your house without a gun, that is way it should be carried.

[permatex]

172. At least she wouldn't have to worry about shooting a pecker off.

[AtheistCrusader]

153. Yeah, let us know if you ever face down some punk with a .45 in his hand.

We'll be interested to know what color your underwear ends up.

[AtheistCrusader]

152. His gun held 6 rounds. Hit an arm, and two halves of an ass.

So where do you get 'missed more often than he hit'?

Nor are you watching the scene from his vantage point. There's a wall there. He's firing a .380. Would I volunteer to be on the other side of that wall? No. But considering that he's reacting to someone he has every reasonable belief that he's holding a firearm as well, he did remarkably well, with a very short barreled handgun against a moving target, even if he was a 20 year old with excellent reflexes.

[PavePusher]

55. Oh dear....

[Tuesday Afternoon]

126. I read the story. there were no cowboys present.

I resent the implication. rude and inflammatory comments again from Hoyt. taking notes.

[Hoyt]

127. Our "cowboy" took chances with people's lives to save himself.

Would "coward" or "policewannabe" work better for you.

Take whatever notes you like.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

129. what do you call bat boy? indian? your attitude toward human life shows little respect for anyone -

you need to grow up, Hoyt. the world is not cowboys and indians anymore.

[sarisataka]

130. I miss WWN *sigh* n/t

[Tuesday Afternoon]

133. always grabbed one in the line at the grocery store, yeah -

good times, my friend. good times

[Hoyt]

137. Exactly, so folks need to leave guns at home.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

139. and what about ballbats??? and if these RUDE boys had not showed their ass we would never known

that someone ccw in that internet cafe, now would we? legal took care of illegal. deal with it, Hoyt.

[permatex]

136. I've got the feeling that it wouldn't matter what the situation was.

I think even if the dirtbags started shooting the patrons and this guy pulled his legally carried gun and shot these two, you would still condemn the lawful citizen.
I guess it falls under 1 former robber covering for his comrades.

[AtheistCrusader]

155. So you're inside his head now? You know he wasn't trying to save all the other people in the room?

[permatex]

162. So Hoyt

how come you haven't posted your conversation with him yet? I mean, after all, you seem to know what he was thinking when he drew and shot. After all, you wouldn't post false statements, would you?

Oh shit, wait.

[gejohnston]

128. A Florida cowboy would

have used his bullwhip, which is why there were called "crackers". Don't know much about history do you? I know you don't know shit about cowboys.

[Hoyt]

138. I know about gun toters.

[GreenStormCloud]

141. As a former armed robber you know about illegal gun toters, legal ones you don't know about. N/ZT

[permatex]

143. LOL

[permatex]

15. The only reason Hoyt is here is to disrupt, misrepresent, outright lie,

he has nothing contructive to add, just destructive. I think he's close to violating the ToS, but thats not my call.

[Hoyt]

74. "Prove it."

[permatex]

76. See post #75

[Meiko]

35. How many rounds did he fire?

How many rounds hit the robbers? It is not all that clear. Nobody else was hit though so there couldn't have been too many extra rounds flying around.

[4th law of robotics]

40. A nunnery, a kindergarten, and a refuge for orphaned puppies

all told he fired off roughly 100,000 rounds and the streets literally ran red with blood.

[shadowrider]

41. He musta had one of those 100,000 round extended magazines I've been hearing about n/t

[4th law of robotics]

44. Worse, he had one of those shoulder things that goes up

?w=500&h=400

[shadowrider]

46. Wow. Does that have heat seeking bullets? n/t

[4th law of robotics]

47. Of course. How else could it be expected to only hit women and children?

/they make smaller targets.

[shadowrider]

49. Not only heat seeking, but can discern gender and age. Impressive. n/t

[Meiko]

79. Good thing all the rounds

were imprinted so they could be traced back to the owner.

[ileus]

12. Rude toter....hateful to society.

They just wanted some folding money...

[oneshooter]

13. Not bad, but could use some more stress training. n/t

[SecularMotion]

19. Why was no attempt made to disarm the robbers?

Law enforcement officers have a duty to disarm first and if that fails then shoot. CCWers should be held to the same requirements if they're attempting to stop a criminal in public.

[permatex]

21. Where in the world do you get the idea that LE duty is to disarm first?

A cops first duty is to protect him/herself. Thats got to be the dumbest thing I've heard today. Are you kidding us?

[shadowrider]

23. Can you believe this? n/t

[permatex]

24. Sadly

yes I can.

[SecularMotion]

26. So if LE had arrived and found 2 suspects with guns and one with a bat

he should just shoot the armed suspects on sight?

[permatex]

27. Yes.

LE has NO DUTY to try to disarm first, their first duty is the protection of themselves. Where do you get that idea?
I have two relates who are cops and they would laugh their ass off at your statement.

[shadowrider]

28. Can you prove, with links, you have two relatives who are cops?

Otherwise some will assume they're NRA backing Weaver lovers who have a dash of Zimmerman thrown in.

[permatex]

32. LOL

[SecularMotion]

29. Then any CCWer who pulls his weapon at a crime scene

could be shoot on sight by a responding LE. Do you toters ever consider that?

[shadowrider]

30. Any legal carrier that pulls his/her weapon with cops on the scene

got hit in the head with too many cans of beans and deserves what they get. Of course, the cops will first try and disarm them before shooting, right?

[permatex]

31. I hope you didn't hurt yourself reaching for that goalpost.

Any CCW'er who pulls his gun with police on scene is going to either end up on the ground eating dirt/concrete or with about a dozen bullets in them and rightly so.

[shadowrider]

34. Don't you know some DU'ers are brave enough to approach legal carriers, disarm them,

then disassemble their weapon and throw the parts in a bush? Hell if they can do it, it's small potatos for a cop to do it.

[permatex]

37. Don't forget this gem

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=471849#471995

[TPaine7]

33. Sure. Cops shoot undercover cops.

It's rare, but it's better than trying to disarm or interrogate a person who is in the act of a violent, armed felony.

Here's a scenario:

A criminal has a gun to your loved one's head. There is a cop 10 feet away with a clear head shot, but he believes in a duty to disarm first, so instead of shooting he walks toward the criminal so that he can wrestle the gun out of his hand. As a result, your loved one and the cop are killed and the criminal lives to see another day.

Is that actually preferable, in your mind, to the head shot?

[Lizzie Poppet]

67. Yes, most CCW carriers do indeed think of that.

In part, because many (if not most) CCW permit classes make such scenarios and how you should behave part of the curriculum. One thing that was driven home in mine was that when the police arrive to find you holding a suspect at gunpoint, they almost certainly will immediately draw and demand that you drop your weapon (even if dispatch has told them what the situation was). They have no idea if the call to 911 that (presumably) described a DGU was a legit description of what was happening, and their first priority is to make sure the only armed people on the scene are them. My instructor took great pains to point out that it's critical to immediately comply...NOT to try to explain things to the cops while you're still holding your weapon.

It's highly unlikely, however, that the cops will "shoot on sight" in such a situation. that will be against their protocols for these types of scenario. Not that they might not screw up...but what's most likely to happen is as related above: they'll immediately demand you drop your weapon.

[SecularMotion]

81. Do your CCW permit classes teach you to shoot first or to demand a suspect drop their weapon?

I think in the case of the OP, if the suspect were warned first he would have readily dropped his weapon knowing it was inoperable.

[permatex]

85. Why would you announce youself first?

Why would you lose the element of surprise? I am under no obligation to warn the thug first. Now, unless the thugs show that they are going to escalate the situation, I myself wouldn't draw, if all they wanted was the money, I would let them have it and I would get the best possible description I could for the police. Sorry, to answer your question, in my CCP class, we were told if we have to shoot to protect ourselves, we better be damned sure and don't announce, just shoot.

[Lizzie Poppet]

88. That's not really the sort of thing they teach, actually.

A class in defensive handgun use might do that sort of thing, but that's not really the focus of CCW permit classes. The latter exist to ensure that permit applicants are aware of what their responsibilities are under the law, what legally constitutes a situation in which deadly force is permissible, what to expect from law enforcement, and so forth. It's not really within their purview to teach tactics.

[sarisataka]

93. The actions would be up to the carrier

Intervening as a third party is discouraged in in CCW classes. It is only in extreme situations that you should do so and is not recommended.

Now say you do intervene, as in this case. The armed citizen must make a split second decision, shoot or demand surrender. The citizen has no way of knowing if the gun is real, fake, broken or anything else, so the assumption must be that it is loaded.

Option A- demand surrender
Pro- no body gets shot if the criminal gives up

Con- criminal may shoot citizen
-criminal may shoot clerk
-criminal may take clerk hostage, seriously complicating the situation
-second criminal may attack citizen before any action is taken

Option B- shoot without warning
Pro- element of surprise
-first hit often will end a fight
-opportunity for well aimed shot

Con- criminal may not be out of fight and shoot bystander
-a miss will give initiative back to the criminal
-possibility a miss or penetrating hit will strike bystander
-if police arrive on scene citizen may be mistaken for criminal
-legal issues of stemming from shooting

notice in both cases there are more cons than pros. A third option is do nothing and be a good witness. May be best choice in some situations, however if the situation turns bad there may be many mental issues for 'not doing something sooner'

[SecularMotion]

97. Thanks for your response. I agree with all your points.

I am not anti-gun and I think well-trained, armed citizens can be a benefit to society. Too many responses here seem to celebrate the use of the gun without considering other options.

[sarisataka]

124. You seemed to ask an honest question

I felt you deserved an honest answer.

I cannot say if I would have shot or not; it is unique to every situation. Some may laugh at the idea of mentally running scenarios, or war gaming if you will, but it is extremely helpful if you find yourself in an unlikely situation such as this. You will be able to focus on you options much sooner if you are not starting from base zero.

Note I did not say a carrier should war game these things. A non-carrier should as well. Know where the exits are in case or fire or robbery, is one part of the parking lot better lit than another, etc. It is this situational awareness that will help you avoid being a crime victim in the first place.
If you choose to carry I believe it is critical.

[HALO141]

118. Not that I disagree with your pros/cons breakdown

but I don't think this was exactly a "third party" situation. The shooter, along with the other patrons, was a robbery victim and almost certainly would have ended up as one of the hostages should that situation have evolved. (By then, of course, the robbers would have his operational handgun as well.)

[sarisataka]

121. I considered it third party

because the armed citizen was not face to face with the gun wielding criminal.
You are correct that he was already involved as opposed to walking in to see a crime in progress. This situation is much clearer to the armed citizen yet the choices are about the same.

[HALO141]

125. Yeah, I figured.

This sort of situation doesn't seem to fit neatly into 1st party/3rd party categories.

[HALO141]

117. Why the hell would I want to turn a shootING into a shootOUT?!?

[AtheistCrusader]

159. If the weapon had been operable, the shooter would have been going up against a

.45 with a .380.

A pretty shitty proposition in which the bad guy might win, or both parties might lose.

[slackmaster]

166. You should take the class and find out for yourself

[PavePusher]

111. This is also why it's important to stay on the phone with the dispatcher....

(or call 911 if at all possible) and let them know what the current situation is. Put the gun down as soon as the police arrive, if it appears safe to do so (i.e. not within reach of the criminal).

Many other possible actions to take as well, which the person asking questions could find out if they'd stop playing disingenuous and actually do some research.

[Lizzie Poppet]

145. Agreed. And that, in turn, is a selling point for handguns over shotguns for home defense.

Kinda hard to dial the phone and stay in touch with the dispatcher if you're having to hold the weapon on a home invader who has surrendered...and the weapon takes two hands.

[Clames]

120. Do you even consider not letting your imagination run away with you?

You can't even explain how you reached this illogical path of thought given the thread topic...

[AtheistCrusader]

158. Yes, that can and has happened.

It is extremely rare, but it can happen. Thing is, cops are pretty good at reading body language. The fact that you aren't shooting people that are running away, without weapons in their hands, and that you don't turn your weapon on the cops, is pretty reasonable evidence you don't need to be shot by the police.

[GreenStormCloud]

165. The police very rarely arrive while the crime is being committed.

In the video of this crime, in a separate thread, the entire event takes 19 seconds. When the cops get there, AFTER all the action, the CCWer will have already put his gun up.

Your imagination is in overdrive.

[AtheistCrusader]

157. The one with the gun, you bet.

The guy holding it would have a VERY narrow window of opportunity to drop it. Approximately the timespan the officer needs to draw his weapon.

[HALO141]

115. Silly permatex... From TV, of course! n/t

[shadowrider]

22. Sure, attempt to disarm a bad guy with a gun in the middle of a heinous crime

and get blown away for your effort.

How much did you think before you made that comment?

[TPaine7]

25. You forgot the sarcasm thingy... Some folks might think you actually believe that if you attempt

an armed robbery with a gun or a bat that a police officer is obligated to attempt to disarm you (thus risking his own and other people's lives) before shooting to stop the threat.

That's a joke, but some here might not know it.

Note to readers: If you act as these robbers did in front of some plainclothes police, expect them to shoot at you until they empty their guns, spraying bullets much more wildly than this CCW permittee did, and expect them to face no negative consequences whatsoever.

And if you (or your next of kin) brings up a "duty to disarm first and if that fails then shoot", expect the officers, the judge and members of the jury to look at you as if you have three heads.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

36. Plus, don't overlook an opportunity to ask: "Why was no attempt made to fire a warning shot?"

[shadowrider]

42. - Snort -

[oneshooter]

38. Please show me where that is written.

[shadowrider]

43. Ask other DU'ers, that'll be proof n/t

[4th law of robotics]

45. See that's the problem, they (cops) are law abiding citizens

if they were criminals they could just casually take the gun away from the person and use it on them (it is a 100% certainty that if you try to use a firearm in self-defense the criminal will simply take it away and shoot you).

So really we need criminals and their insane ninja like weapon taking skills patrolling the streets.

[PavePusher]

54. Oh dear....

[Clames]

98. Wrong again.

Cite evidence to that nonsense please....

[Tuesday Afternoon]

131. disarm a fucking ball bat?? tell me how. I am all ears. that is the rudest goddamn thing I can

think of. Wanna piss off someone? walk around with a ballbat. fucking rude as hell. in a goddamn internet cafe ?!!! this ain't no ballfield. holy fuck. that pisses me off. where are these boys' parents??? what kind of raising did they get?

sounds like they got disarmed pretty damn good.

lord, I just can not get past the ballbat.

[AtheistCrusader]

156. Private civilians are never held to the same standard as a police officer.

He wasn't trying to apprehend them, nor should he be. THAT would be vigilanteism.

[Tejas]

160. Batman wasn't there.

[bongbong]

51. Lots of replies from the gun-religionists

I thought it was hard to type with one hand.

[TPaine7]

60. We all bow to your expertise...

I thought it was hard to type with one hand.

(On that point and that point alone.)

[bongbong]

63. Very good

"I know you are but what am I?"

Takes me right back to 2nd grade!

[TPaine7]

64. Back?!!

Hey, I just thought I'd talk to you at your level.

You know, sans content, sans logic, pure snark.

You shouldn't complain about someone reaching out like that.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

65. What grade are you in now?

[Lizzie Poppet]

68. No one who makes infantile posts like your "type with one hand" twaddle...

...and any room to make that sort of remark to someone else.

[bongbong]

72. Infantile?

Oh, don't be so SENSITIVE! It's just a JOKE!

I wish the gun-relgionists at DU were as tough as they think they are!

[Lizzie Poppet]

86. The concept of irony pretty much passes you by, dunnit?

[bongbong]

106. Yes!

Yes, oh kings-of-unintentional-irony (I'm looking at all of you, DU gun-religionists trying to convince Liberals that guns are "Like! OMG! The most awesomest thing evah!&quot

[Lizzie Poppet]

107. And logic as well, evidently.

"strawman argument"

Do yourself a favor and look it up.

[permatex]

108. So do you have anything constructive to add?

[permatex]

89. Oh, I think I'm a pretty tough guy

I've probably forgotten more than you'll ever learn.

[permatex]

66. Why don't you show us how

you seem to be the expert at it.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

132. that's what You get for thinking.

go do another bong hit

[bowens43]

59. Horror in Texas: Father shoots four kids, wife, kills self

http://www.katu.com/news/national/Horror-in-Texas-Father-shoots-four-kids-wife-kills-self-134845408.html

BAY CITY, Texas (AP) — A man who shot four young children and their mother at their southeastern Texas home before killing himself was the woman's husband and children's father, whom she had recently accused of assault, police said Thursday.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

61. Off topic. Not related to the actual post.

[sarisataka]

94. Please don't disrupt the thread

It's a news item shared for comment or discussion. If you have nothing to add please refrain from disrupting the thread.

Credit where due http://www.democraticunderground.com/117250571#post12

[marsis]

104. So if the father had used

a steak knife you'd be against steak knives.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

135. that deserves it own OP - shall we talk about the underlying cause and stressors in this man's life?

shall we talk about how little good it did this woman to report the assault? so sad.

[jody]

101. Probability is about 60% that at least one person will have a CCW with n = 30

“IIRC, FL has about 3% of the adult population that has CCW. If one assumes about 30 adults in the place then there is about a 65% probability that someone will be armed.”

The problem is a variation of the birthday problem and unless my calculations are wrong the probability is about 60% at least one person will have a CCW from:

1 – (.97 exponent 30)

Interesting that a criminal taking on 23 people with a population of 3% having CCW has a 50% chance of facing at least one person with a CCW!

[GreenStormCloud]

110. I will accept your calculations.

I ball-parked it close enough. We arrive at the same conclusion - keep doing that kind of robbery and sometime in the first few robberies your luck is almost certain to run out. His ran out at n=1.

[PavePusher]

113. If criminals had a better background in statistics....

I think there'd probably be a lot less crime.

Just another reason to improve the education system.

Which blatently begs the question: Does education effectiveness (test scores, graduation rates, etc.) have any correlation to crime rates? Hmmmm.....

[gejohnston]

140. My guess is that they were going by stereotype than statistics.

Most likely:
CCW=old white guy who does not do computers or cafes.
Internet cafe=young geek or hipster or UF student that would not have gun.

So much for stereotypes.

[PavePusher]

114. Love the way the butt-shot crim tries to portray himself as a victim.

Sad that the author/reporter plays along....

[Higgs boson]

122. It's a shame the customer wasn't a better shot.

...

[2on2u]

134. Welcome to DU.... and I don't know why but the name Higgs Bison popped into

my head.... but I don't want to buffalo you now.... heh heh....

[OriginalGeek]

142. No sir

that is not a shame. The bottom (no pun intended!) line is that the legal CCW guy prevented an armed robbery without loss of life. That's a good outcome in my book. Criminals go to jail and nobody has to deal with the aftershock of taking a life.

It doesn't always work out that way but in this case, things went as fine as they could given two armed criminals trying to rob innocent people.

[permatex]

148. I'm going to agree with you

It was a positive outcome to a potentially bad situation, and the shooter doesn't have the nightmare of taking a human life on his conscious.

[Higgs boson]

176. Well, the upshot (so to speak) was a net positive, but there's a big chance the criminals will get

more opportunities in future to repeat their crimes. And have a few years (or maybe months) of OJT in the crossbar hotel to learn how to rob more efficiently.

[SecularMotion]

173. The video shows him shooting as they are running away

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=428_1342491285

It's hard to tell if he took one shot before they ran or they just ran at the sight of the gun, but any shots fired after they ran were unnecessary vigilante behavior.

[Tejas]

174. They could've had grenades.

At any moment they might have dodged behind a counter or machine and started shooting innocents. They could have surrendered but no, they were retreating to regroup in the parking lot and then remount the attack. Let me guess, if you were a LEO you would have let them flee?

[gejohnston]

177. I'm sitting in that very internet cafe

according to the employee, the CCW guy is a retired US Marshal. Sorry Hoyt, have to find a new meme.