bad /good Delray Dunkin Donuts Robbery

Bad: because the 63 yo man has the sand to fight a robber but pays the price
Good: because they crashed and got caught
A morning coffee break took at terrifying turn for customers at a Delray Beach Dunkin' Donuts shop Wednesday morning when two robbers burst in waving guns.
and the creeps take the pennys from the share-a-penny bowl

edit: if you were there how would you handle this. one guy behind the counter and one in front that is an easy target?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMFfK...eature=g-all-u

Creeps? I can think of several terms to call these BGs, creeps ain't one!

Glad they caught 'em. Prayers for the "man with the sand". Hope he comes out okay.

Seem like a well executed attempt at robbery. The vids were the clincher. Musta been cams outside, too (to get the make of car).

Too bad there weren't a dozen cops in the donut shop! Might have been a much different outcome.

If an armed citizen shoots at the perps after one of them knocks the old guy down, I wonder if the prosecutor would charge you and say it was clear they were not intending to kill anyone.

That 63 year old didn't have much to go on. That was much too risky. He's lucky he didn't get killed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beararms

If an armed citizen shoots at the perps after one of them knocks the old guy down, I wonder if the prosecutor would charge you and say it was clear they were not intending to kill anyone.

---

NO; his accomplice would get charge with murder if you killed one, not you.
You are defending yourself during a robbery. They have guns and there is no other reason than to shoot someone. You can’t tell what they are going to do, just the one guy kicking the old man in the face for no reason shows they will shoot someone.
These are street thugs and you can never tell what they are going to do

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by barstoolguru

You are defending yourself during a robbery. They have guns and there is no other reason than to shoot someone. You can’t tell what they are going to do, just the one guy kicking the old man in the face for no reason shows they will shoot someone.
These are street thugs and you can never tell what they are going to do

---

I agree with all of this.

I'm suggesting that an anti-gun prosecutor could make the argument that the armed robbers were only there for the money and didn't intend to shoot anyone, as evidenced by the reaction to the guy trying to tackle one of them. From a legal liability perspective, it seems us sheepdogs are incentivized to wait until the perp actually shoots someone before getting involved.

That is your choice to wait and see what their intent is but what if they shoot you FIRST and then shoot others? What if they start shaking everyone down and get your gun? The point being you don't know what their intent is. I have the element of surprise on my side and to SEE if I am going to be a victim is not why I carry a gun

It's hard to tell but did the BG in white shirt have a gun? I did not see one only gloved hand and his pointing finger is all I see. 63 year old man is lucky to be alive to see 64.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beararms

I agree with all of this.

I'm suggesting that an anti-gun prosecutor could make the argument that the armed robbers were only there for the money and didn't intend to shoot anyone, as evidenced by the reaction to the guy trying to tackle one of them. From a legal liability perspective, it seems us sheepdogs are incentivized to wait until the perp actually shoots someone before getting involved.

---

An anti-gun prosecutor might take it to trial but I doubt he would find a jury that would convict.

my folks retired to that area.....
i've been to that shop--more so the ones next to it

not for 10 years, but i was thinking of retiring to that area.

than seeing this...

but, so where else is any much better?
well, where ever else else may be, im keeping my C3 on me

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beararms

I agree with all of this.

I'm suggesting that an anti-gun prosecutor could make the argument that the armed robbers were only there for the money and didn't intend to shoot anyone, as evidenced by the reaction to the guy trying to tackle one of them. From a legal liability perspective, it seems us sheepdogs are incentivized to wait until the perp actually shoots someone before getting involved.

---

I disagree, dependent on your jurisdiction, of course.

Most states allow for the CCW holder, or anyone else for that matter, to use force to stop a felony. If the permitee was successful in stopping the thugs, a grand jury would "no bill" this quickly.

That said, taking two assailants, physically so far apart would require both well practiced skill and a good measure of pure luck.

If the old timer had shot his perp in the back of the head, rather than try to tackle him, who knows what the other thug would have done?

No easy solution for this one, except for be a good witness.

I agree with barstool, but.....

Two thugs with customers AND employees in the AOR...... VERY fluid, dynamic, and dangerous. If you take a shot it'd HAVE to count..... and with two of them seperated and controling the scene as they were, it'd be a tough call and more than a few shots would be exchanged. That would endanger everybody. That call would have to be made on the fly by the armed customer.

These punks did a 'good' job covering and controling the store, they'd done this before...... or practiced prior to the robbery. The 63yo (unarmed)gentleman had the 'sand' to face 'em but it was a tacticaly unsound chance he took that could've ended MUCH worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beararms

I agree with all of this.

I'm suggesting that an anti-gun prosecutor could make the argument that the armed robbers were only there for the money and didn't intend to shoot anyone, as evidenced by the reaction to the guy trying to tackle one of them. From a legal liability perspective, it seems us sheepdogs are incentivized to wait until the perp actually shoots someone before getting involved.

---

Armed robbery is a felony in which lethal force is initiated by the perpetrators, so their ostensible intent is legally moot. I'm an armed private citizen, not a furry four-legged animal. Does your hypothetical prosecution have any basis in actual case law?

I would drop to cover, escape if possible, if not stay in ambush, if I felt my life was threatened, end the threat.

I am the age of the gent with the kick to the head. He is lucky he is alive. I would not have jumped that thug 40 years ago, much less today.

Never start a fair fight. Always have the others in the kill box before showing your hand.

You had 2 bg's in different locations in the store that apparently both had guns. If you decided to step in and try to shoot one it may ignite a gun fight that could easily kill innocent bystanders nearby as well as getting yourself killed. Taking this situation to the next level is very risky. Being a good witness in this case was probably the most sensible thing to do.

However, if they opened fire that's different story.