Concealed carry nabs criminal duo in Chicago

[NightHawkeye]

Would-Be Robbers Enter Store, Pull Out Guns — Seconds Later, the Duo Learns They Made a Big Mistake | The Blaze

According to police, the two individuals entered a T-Mobile store in Chicago and drew their guns. Moments later, an employee with a concealed carry license pulled out his own weapon and fired upon the individuals, chasing them out of the store, WLS-TV reported.
...
The duo drove to a nearby hospital and were soon taken into custody by police.​

 

[Darkhorse]

But...since they weren't killed, the case won't be in the "self-defense" statistics...

And if they had been killed, it would have been called "gun violence"!

 

[aieyiamfu]

But...since they weren't killed, the case won't be in the "self-defense" statistics...

And if they had been killed, it would have been called "gun violence"!

It technically is gun violence, justified or not violence is violence, when done with a gun it is gun violence.

 

[aieyiamfu]

Would-Be Robbers Enter Store, Pull Out Guns — Seconds Later, the Duo Learns They Made a Big Mistake | The Blaze

According to police, the two individuals entered a T-Mobile store in Chicago and drew their guns. Moments later, an employee with a concealed carry license pulled out his own weapon and fired upon the individuals, chasing them out of the store, WLS-TV reported.
...
The duo drove to a nearby hospital and were soon taken into custody by police.​

I wonder if the criminals got those guns through legal channels. If we had a law against having guns in a cell phone store that never would have happened.

 

[Darkhorse]

I wonder if the criminals got those guns through legal channels. If we had a law against having guns in a cell phone store that never would have happened.

Actually, it would have happened, just the same.

If someone is planning to shoot innocent people (a serious felony), some stupid little "no guns" sign / law isn't going to stop them.

Virtually all mass shootings occur in "gun-free" zones.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Actually, it would have happened, just the same.

If someone is planning to shoot innocent people (a serious felony), some stupid little "no guns" sign / law isn't going to stop them.

Virtually all mass shootings occur in "gun-free" zones.

Unfortunately, the concealed carry holder who defended the store would have been unarmed.

 

[Hank77]

If we had a law against having guns in a cell phone store that never would have happened.

lol, the criminals would have known that no one without criminal intent was in the store with a gun. Obviously a criminal is one who doesn't care about breaking laws.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Wow, the T-Mobile employee sure earned his <$15/hr. when he risked his life to defend the T-Mobile stores valuable cache of a few new phones and accessories and worthless unactivated gift cards! lol, what an idiot. I'm sure he saved T-Mobile from going out of business! lol

 

[NightHawkeye]

Wow, the T-Mobile employee sure earned his <$15/hr. when he risked his life to defend the T-Mobile stores valuable cache of a few new phones and accessories and worthless unactivated gift cards! lol, what an idiot. I'm sure he saved T-Mobile from going out of business! lol

He also ensured that fewer armed robbers will go to T-Mobile outlets.

 

[cow451]

A little homework reveals:

AJ Joudeh, who identified himself as a regional manager for T-Mobile, said the company allows employees with concealed carry licenses to have weapons at work. In the aftermath of Wednesday’s shooting, Joudeh closed the store and sent employees home for the day.

and

On Saturday, a liquor store employee shot and killed two teens, 15 and 17, inside Z&S Food & Liquor, 1351 W. 87th St., when they tried to rob the store around 8:30 p.m., authorities said.

Chicago police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi has said the department doesn’t anticipate the liquor store employee will be charged in Saturday's shooting.

 

[Hank77]

A little homework reveals:

More details about the liquor store attempted robbery by the two teens.
"That person hit the clerk standing behind the counter, while the other remained in front of the counter, authorities said....
At least one of them was armed with a gun."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-two-robbers-shot-to-death-20160109-story.html

 

[ArmenianJohn]

He also ensured that fewer armed robbers will go to T-Mobile outlets.

Wow, IF that were true then good thing he risked his own life to make sure fewer armed robbers will go to T-mobile's stores when even T-Mobile doesn't care enough about it to have armed guards! He's an extra-stupid idiot! I wonder what T-Mobile will give him for this? Probably a nice pat on the back and some positive words! lol

However, I don't believe that this will even lessen robberies at T-Mobile stores, so he risked his life for some cheap products which aren't his and that T-Mobile doesn't even care about guarding with firearms.

 

[Darkhorse]

However, I don't believe that this will even lessen robberies at T-Mobile stores, so he risked his life for some cheap products which aren't his and that T-Mobile doesn't even care about guarding with firearms.

His life was already at risk when the robbers threatened him with guns.

That's the big difference between robbery and burglary; robbery is a "crime against the person" because the person is threatened or overpowered. Burglary is a "crime against property" (no threat to any person) unless the burglar encounters someone and threatens them.

So he didn't risk his life for cellphones; he defended his life from the robbers' threat.

 

[dgiharris]

Wow, IF that were true then good thing he risked his own life to make sure fewer armed robbers will go to T-mobile's stores when even T-Mobile doesn't care enough about it to have armed guards! He's an extra-stupid idiot! I wonder what T-Mobile will give him for this? Probably a nice pat on the back and some positive words! lol

However, I don't believe that this will even lessen robberies at T-Mobile stores, so he risked his life for some cheap products which aren't his and that T-Mobile doesn't even care about guarding with firearms.

If you read my posts on gun control, I'm fairly moderate. I believe that owners need to be trained, licensed, that all guns should be registered and tracked. I'm also not a fan of the NRA ideal that everyone walking around with a gun makes us all safer.

however, if someone pulls out a gun in ANY setting, be it someone's home or a store, and said person's intent is to rob the store and people within that store, than ANYONE who has a gun has the right to defend themselves.

in high stress situations, the would-be robbers can make mistakes, they can panic, they can get drunk with power, they can decide to kill someone just for the thrill of it or just because someone sneezed and said robber is so wired up he shoots... Basically, there are a dozen ways in which any robbery can end badly and I would never fault anyone in the situation who has a gun from taking it out and shooting the robbers.

It's easy to Monday morning quarterback here and say, "Well, he is stupid for shooting robbers, just let them have the merchandise and everyone walks away..." No. Not always. One of the robbers can say, "They saw my face, now I have to kill them." Or, one of the robbers may decide to take a hostage so they can empty out your bank account with your credit/ATM cards then panics and kills you. Again, there are a dozen ways this can go south. Put the onus and blame on the robbers were it belongs

 

[dgiharris]

He also ensured that fewer armed robbers will go to T-Mobile outlets.

The only problem I have with this is the mathematics of "Unintended Consequences".

It very well could be as you say, this well publicized event prevents robberies or....
It could have an Unintended Consequence. That is, the next set of would be robbers decide to just shoot everyone assuming someone has a gun.

Or, future robberies can fall some where in between. Less robberies, however the ones that do occur are more violent since robbers are more fearful and keyed up...

I'm not so much arguing the right or wrong of what happened, I'm moreso arguing that the consequences won't be so easily deduced. Ironically, there is no way to quantify my argument, it is a bit on the nihilist side *shrug*

but I thought it was worth bringing up

 

[Darkhorse]

I'm also not a fan of the NRA ideal that everyone walking around with a gun makes us all safer.

The NRA has never said "Everyone should be walking around with a gun". Among other things, they have tried to relax HIPPA laws enough to make mental-health records more available.

Isn't it interesting that this untrained, unqualified, trigger-happy, would-be-cowboy managed to shoot the robbers? Not other customers, not another employee, not a stranger in the next building...the robbers! How did he manage that?

 

[cow451]

The NRA has never said "Everyone should be walking around with a gun". Among other things, they have tried to relax HIPPA laws enough to make mental-health records more available.

The strategy is to focus on the mentally ill as scapegoats to avoid the average gun owner being inconvenienced.

Isn't it interesting that this untrained, unqualified, trigger-happy, would-be-cowboy managed to shoot the robbers? Not other customers, not another employee, not a stranger in the next building...the robbers! How did he manage that?

The T-Mobile employee had a concealed carry permit. I assume you are referring to the liquor store robbery. I would not say that anything indicated he was "trigger-happy". He was faced with armed robbers. His performance indicated he had some experience. As any cop will attest, there are split-second decisions to be made. The probability of a trained firearm owner making a good decision are higher than untrained. Fortunately, there were no bystanders.

If I live in an apartment building or crowded neighborhood, I am putting people at risk discharging a firearm. I could minimize that risk with training, practice, proper choice of weapon and ammunition. However, I cannot make that risk zero and no reasonable person is saying that can be achieved. I just don't get the strident opposition and paranoia to any regulation.

 

[Butterfly99]

Wow, the T-Mobile employee sure earned his <$15/hr. when he risked his life to defend the T-Mobile stores valuable cache of a few new phones and accessories and worthless unactivated gift cards! lol, what an idiot. I'm sure he saved T-Mobile from going out of business! lol

Yeah that's what pretty much what my teacher said. Most robbers just want the money & the merchandise. They aren't setting out to shoot anyone. Stores have got insurance. Human life is the priority. We were talking about this & the case of the 3 yr old who got killed after finding his dad's gun in the convenience store he owned and accidentally shooting himself. My teacher worked for a 7-11 in college & was there when they got robbed. He followed his training to put his hands up immediately & cooperate. The manager handed over the money, let the robbers take whatever they wanted. Then once they were gone she locked the store & called the police. The police caught them from the camera footage showing their license plates. No arguing, no heroics. Nobody got harmed. The reasons employees are trained that way & not given weapons is cause the majority of the time, just calmly cooperating has the strongest chance of no life being jeopardized.

 

[dgiharris]

....... However, I cannot make that risk zero and no reasonable person is saying that can be achieved. I just don't get the strident opposition and paranoia to any regulation.

The paranoia stems from slippery slope argumentative fallacies. Many 2nd amendment proponents believe that ANY compromise or regulation etc will eventually lead to repelling the 2nd amendment and loss of their guns and right to bear arms.

So, doesn't matter whether propositions are reasonable or not, their stance is to just say no to anything that even remotely touches their 2nd amendment rights.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Yeah that's what pretty much what my teacher said. Most robbers just want the money & the merchandise. They aren't setting out to shoot anyone. Stores have got insurance. Human life is the priority.

It depends on what they're robbing...

If they're robbing a store, sure they have insurance and they can opt to hand over the money.

If it's an individual in the streets who are carrying cash, there's no insurance for that. If a single mom on a fixed income is headed to the store to buy food for the week, and robber steals her $100, there's no insurance for that and her kids go hungry for the week.

My personal stance on this, and everyone has their own individual views on it so I realize they might not share my views,

If it's my money and my merchandise, why should an armed robber be entitled to take it without resistance in the name of "being civil and just letting them take it (and hoping they'll just leave afterwards)"?