Rebecca Lynn Newton, 20, of Barber Mill Road in Clayton said she was about to insert an envelope containing $400 from her paycheck into the ATM slot...

Two words: Direct Deposit.

Kevin what statistical evidence can you offer to back up your statement that pulling a weapon increased the chance for "tragedy". Ever since the "three strikes law" was passed criminals are just as likely to kill you whether you comply or not. The reason that they don't just kill all of the bank tellers is because even if they did they they would still have the video cameras catching their images and voices.

Steelwelder is entirely correct about most police officers' shooting abilities. They go qualify once a year in Houston (not sure about other departments). They probably do not shoot on a regular basis and many of them frankly suck when it comes to shooting.

As for the whole $400 issue, unless that lady was yelling "He took my $400!!!", there's really no way for anyone to have known what was being stolen. Not the crook and not the bystander. It could have been $10, it could have been $2000. No matter how much it was, the bystander did the right thing. I'd have shot the guy straight out, forget the tires.

And simon_bar_sinister is correct. See what being sheep gets us? (hey, are you this simon_bar_sinister? (link not safe for work - no pics, but lots and lots and lots of text)

How could you fault his method, though? He use the available method that offered the least amount of risk to himself and the victim.

He didn't shoot to kill, remember.

Sherlock

For as heated and as serious as this thread was for a while, I thank you. LOFL!

JFK was killer by a .22

Actually he should have shot to kill. YOu should always shoot to kill. It is stupid to shoot someone only intending to wound them. There are lots of police reports where someone shot to wound an assailant in self-defense and the assailant then produces a weapon and kills the victim. Guns are intended to be deadly force and that is how they should be used.

Spooda
Oh, I agree that if you pull your gun you better be prepared to use it. But more than 9 times out of 10, you won't HAVE to use it. It's that 10th time you should always be prepared for.

Someone shoots someone else... and it doesn't happen in Texas... I'm relieved.. thought they would start calling us rednecks again....

Spooda

No such thing as pulling out a gun for effect. THAT'S how you'd end up dead. If you pull it out, you better be prepared to fire.

In that case the answer is ultimately no. I would not be willing to fire a gun at an unarmed man for stealing cash from a woman. For raping a woman? Yes. But that's our own line to draw I suppose. To me stealing doesn't garner the death penalty from the courts, so I shouldn't be any different.

lonerancher
Actually he should have shot to kill.

I guess this is where we differ the most. I don't feel that this particular criminal did anything worthy of death. Worthy of 5-15 in the pen? Absolutely.

I don't care how much money it was or how big an asshole he was. No amount of money is worth a life. You violent neanderthals need to step into the 21st century. Violence begets violence. And killing someone makes you as bad as them. DIDN'T YOU LEARN ANYTHING FROM SATERDAY MORNING CARTOONS???? I thought these were things instilled in most CHILDREN, but apparently it never sank in for 90% of american asshat adults.

bugdog-
definately not that simon bar sinister - think back to the underdog show. but thanks for another weird link.

No one took any lives here, move along.

You know, that person worked for her $ 400. I think by pulling a gun out in a volatile situation like this increases the chance of a tragedy happening. So would you be willing to die for that $ 400 ?

You've got it backwards. That the question every criminal should be asking himself. "Am I willing to risk death to steal $400?"

Oh, and speaking of Direct Deposit. Maybe she's a waitress and those were her tips.

Tyee -- Rifle cartridges generally have substantially more powder and therefore much higher velocities and kinetic energy than handgun rounds.

HE DIDN'T SHOOT TO KILL HIM HE SHOT HIM IN THE LEG OMFG WHAT HAPPENED TO READING COMPREHENSION!!!!!!!

*sigh*

People are stupid.

NICU;
The point I was making is that is you feel the need to shoot someone it is tactically stupid to not shoot them to death. Also as I stated before you have no way of knowing that once the criminal took the money he would not produce a weapon and kill the witness or even kill the witness with his bare hands. I would not be willing to gamble that innocent woman's life by sitting there and betting that he would not harm her.

Lonerancher

My arguments come mostly from the security procedures from my employer (a bank). The one and only concern when placed in a situation like this is to get the guy out as fast as possible, because as long as the guy is there, there is danger.

If you decide to act and protect yourself, you force the robber to react, but you don't know HOW he will react. He might run, or he might fight.

Now if he runs, you get to keep your money. Great.

But if the robber decides to fight? He might pull a gun himself, or he might grapple yours, he might beat you up. Anyway, I just wouldn't want to be placed in that situation, certainly not over $ 400.


Here's a true story. really.

A bank robber in Quebec robs a store, but all the tellers are behind a bulletproof glass. Now the robber points his gun at the CUSTOMERS and says if the bank doesn't give them money, he'll shoot them!

The bank in question (not mine, btw) had their own procedures in place which was to not give anything. So, the tellers in the safety of their bulletproof glass, don't give anything.

The robber is agitated (and drugged up) so he points his gun to the head of a guy. The guy is freaking out! He says to the teller to withdraw the money from his own account! BUT SHE REFUSES!

The robber shoots! The guy isn't dead, merely quadraplegic for life.

Anyway, they caught the robber and put him in jail, and the quadraplegic is suing the asshats of a bank who implemented such a stupid policy.

If this had happened in the UK, the shooter would be in jail, and his tax-dollars (er, pounds) would be paying to have the bullet fished out of the robbers leg!

A leg shot can be deadly. The femoral artery is a nice big target in both legs. Also as I stated before if you are going to shoot you should shoot to kill.

And this bullshiat about money not being worth a human life?????? I guess all medical care around the world should be free following this logic.

Actually, according to the Warren report,

After review of standard reference works and the markings on the rifle, it was identified by the FBI as a 6.5-millimeter model 91/38 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. Experts from the FBI made an independent determination of the caliber by inserting a Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5-millimeter cartridge into the weapon for fit, and by making a sulfur cast of the inside of the weapon's barrel and measuring the cast with a micrometer. From outward appearance, the weapon would appear to be a 7.35-millimeter rifle, but its mechanism had been re-barreled with a 6.5-millimeter barrel.

Report

I have never been a gun proponent or a gun opponent because I don't own any guns and don't have a need or desire for one.

But I am starting to warm up to gun ownership after reading that guns are used approximately 2.3 million times a year defensively with 95% of the cases being resolved by simply brandishing the weapon, yet it is very obvious that most of the public, such as myself are completely unaware of this.

I feel railroaded in a sense....

I menat to say that was the JFK assisination weapon...

If someone were forcibly taking my $400, and I felt my life may be in jeapordy, I would fire. Period.

lonerancher

I think there's another major dividing line in our sides. Mind you I do RESPECT the opposing view, I just don't agree with it.

I personally don't think we should assume that everyone that commits a crime: A. Has a weapon and B. Is prepared to be sought after as a murderer instead of a simple thief. I understand the whole "3-strikes" point you make in that maybe a criminal figures "I'm goin away for good if I get caught, might as well get all the witnesses", but think about it. Would the cops be more apt to use all their resources to go after some guy that swiped $400 from a woman, or a murderer? I would assume that he'd realize that killing this woman once he had the money would just be more trouble than he was willing to deal with.

Kevin,
I have trained with my weapon and specifically for weapon retension. My gun will not be wrestled away form me and if the robber is going to pull his gun her better do it quickly or he is dead. It is just that simple. I aggree with the proceedures banks use in handing over money but for an individual on the street compliance does nothing to ensure safety.

Korovyov,

I'm sorry that should have read.
RFK was killed by a .22, and it was a hand gun.

NICU as someone who as worked as a cop let me tell you that criminals do not apply logic. If criminals thought they would rarely be caught. Criminals are only smart on TV dramas in real life they are low-life scumbags who prey on good innocent people without any remorse.

Crusader

"And to do the right thing, no matter how small, I would die for".

Well, okay then.

Young Fart

I think the criminals ALRREADY asked that question to themselves, and the answer ultimately was yes, they'de be willing to die for your $ 400. Or is it they'd be willing to kill for $ 400 ?

Banks have nothing to lose by handing over the cash. It's the smartest thing they can do. They're insured.

Most individuals I know don't have their cash insured.

NICU8697 -- If you're not prepared to fire, then don't draw -- for multiple reasons. One is that it's an obvious escalation, and that the perpetrator might decide that he needs to draw his own weapon. In this case, since the perpetrator had already reached his own car, it would be conceivable that he would have one in reach but previously out of sight of the intervening citizen. After all, while you may have decided that you will not fire, he cannot safely assume that once your own weapon is evident. Two, if the perpetrator realizes that you're NOT willing to shoot, he may attempt to seize your weapon.

Loneranger stole my thunder on that one...

Violent criminals for the most part aren't the brightest bulbs on the christmas tree. They can't see past what they are having for dinner, let alone apply logic such as that!

1)I hope when i buy a house I have an anti-gunner for a neighbor then instead of having security system signs, i can put signs in the windows that read:
Attention, my neighbor does not believe in guns or defending himself against robbery. I, on the other hand intend to defend my belongings with a 12 gauge Benelli shotgun. I will not, however, make any attempt to defend my neighbors belongings with my gun.

2) I can see feeling sympathy if someone gets shot while stealing money to feed himself, but how often does that happen? You can beg enough money to feed yourself i suspect. Also, this tard was DRIVING AWAY. perhaps he could have sold the car for $400?

3)It is my understanding that when you feel your life is in danger (about to be run over), you should aim for center mass and not stop shooting until the danger is gone. It is nice that this incident didn't result in loss of life, but if I were the guy in this story, the idiot probably wouldn't be limping to jail. I kinda question whether you can shoot someone in the leg on purpose when they are trying to run you over anyway.

Korovyov -

And use it against you...

"I'm going to have him and his wife and kids over for dinner." Damn he saved her money so why is he going to eat him?

/hungry hungry hippos

HaveAtYou

Is it a Super Black Eagle?

Crusader

That's right, we dont know what a robber would do after he got your money. However, I'm prepared to make the assumption he came for the money, he got it, now he'll go away. If he wanted to go on a murder spree, why not just go colombine?

Lonerancher

Compliance on the street? I guess it gets him away quicker and doesn't draw a confrontation.

Well your guess works against statistics.

Lonerancher

uh? What stat?

Hero tag? Oh come on, he could have easily hit an innocent person or he could have gone after the wrong guy. This is just asinine. Put them both in jail and don't let this whacko have any more guns.

That Law in Kennesaw Georgia USA that requires heads of household to own a gun is weak. It was amended in such a manner to exempt people who do not really want to own a gun. Statistics do show a reduction in crime though.

http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/kennesaw.html

Recent crime reports show that even after complying victims are being shot.
Age of Reason: Anytime a police officer fires a gun he could hit someone other than the bad guy so I guess they shouldn't shoot either.

Those of you who are inclined to just give into criminals well I hope you all leave pretty chalk outlines behind.