Ring A
Senior Member
What a load of Poppycock !!!!!!
--
'I don't necessarily believe everything I say'!
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Work Place Security Video & An Employee's Handgun Saves Lives.
- Thread starter BRJR
- Start date
- Status
'I don't necessarily believe everything I say'!
The United States has many problems. If you subtracted all gun deaths from the statistics you would still have rediculously high figures...
But this is neither here nor there. We are discussing this case at this time. And this man probably saved the lives of a number of people including his own.
I would like to see you go over to this guy, and tell him to his face that "he's part of the problem."
It would be sort of like telling the family of someone wrongfully executed, that that death was worthwhile because stuff happens when you have capital punishment.
Dave
Really, that's what this question boils down to. Does a person have a right to defend themselves? Is this not a right we acknowledge even for animals?
Is this not the oldest right that humanity has?
This question of "GUNS," in big bold all cap letters is a red herring. I have a right to defend myself. No one can surrender this right for me. No one can take this right away from me. Any attempts to do so are immoral. All well and good for the police to catch the person who murdered me. But it does me no good at all. If people choose not to defend themselves, I can't take that decision away from them. Nevertheless, it's not me who is going to take advantage of them because of that choice.
This is a universal right belonging to all people of all places. In the US it's written into our Constitution. But whether there's a legal framework of no legal framework, that right remains. I have no problem with any law that penalizes with extra severity a crime that makes use of a firearm. If people are so afraid of firearms, then that is a reasonable solution that I could even get behind. But I am not a criminal using a weapon to commit a crime. I am a law abiding citizen, and those who advocate making self defense a crime, have not thought this through.
Dave
Is this not the oldest right that humanity has?
This question of "GUNS," in big bold all cap letters is a red herring. I have a right to defend myself. No one can surrender this right for me. No one can take this right away from me. Any attempts to do so are immoral. All well and good for the police to catch the person who murdered me. But it does me no good at all. If people choose not to defend themselves, I can't take that decision away from them. Nevertheless, it's not me who is going to take advantage of them because of that choice.
This is a universal right belonging to all people of all places. In the US it's written into our Constitution. But whether there's a legal framework of no legal framework, that right remains. I have no problem with any law that penalizes with extra severity a crime that makes use of a firearm. If people are so afraid of firearms, then that is a reasonable solution that I could even get behind. But I am not a criminal using a weapon to commit a crime. I am a law abiding citizen, and those who advocate making self defense a crime, have not thought this through.
Dave
A
aardvark7
Guest
Dave, you are mistaken. I was not discussing this case at all, but rather pointing out Graystar's complete misapprehension and belief that England is a more violent place than America.
As to the specifics of the merits of the actions of this particular gentleman, given the circumstances in which he found himself, I have no opinion one way or another as I do not know the exact details and have no intention of researching them further.
--
2011 : My new year's resolution -
To be positive, not negative.
To help, not to hinder.
To praise, not to criticise.
fwellers
Forum Enthusiast
I like what you say here. We do have the right to defend ourselves.
Personally i wouldn't want to kill anyone for trying to steal from me. In my mind, the punishment is too harsh. But the thing is, you never know what you are up against. If you hand your camera nicely over to the robber, he/she could still decide to kill you.
Heck even if they don't have a gun they can kill you. All they have to do is to beat you in a fistfight, and once you are down you are at their mercy. What's to stop them from kicking your skull right in.
Graystar is wrong. Not all states are like Florida or Texas.
The laws in many states ( like mine, Virginia ) are tough on shooters. You have to prove that you feared for your life before you pullled and shot your weapon. That is THE ONLY reason you are allowed to use deadly force. To protect your life or the life of others.
And if you are a large person, you have even less legal allowances available to you. If the person is smaller than you, you have a hard time proving you feared for your life. It's a tough situation if you're even in it.
Peace,
Floyd
Personally i wouldn't want to kill anyone for trying to steal from me. In my mind, the punishment is too harsh. But the thing is, you never know what you are up against. If you hand your camera nicely over to the robber, he/she could still decide to kill you.
Heck even if they don't have a gun they can kill you. All they have to do is to beat you in a fistfight, and once you are down you are at their mercy. What's to stop them from kicking your skull right in.
Graystar is wrong. Not all states are like Florida or Texas.
The laws in many states ( like mine, Virginia ) are tough on shooters. You have to prove that you feared for your life before you pullled and shot your weapon. That is THE ONLY reason you are allowed to use deadly force. To protect your life or the life of others.
And if you are a large person, you have even less legal allowances available to you. If the person is smaller than you, you have a hard time proving you feared for your life. It's a tough situation if you're even in it.
--
Peace,
Floyd
tsiya
Senior Member
"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed – where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once".
Judge Alex Kozinski
--
tsiya [Bob]
http://www.pbase.com/tsiya/
Judge Alex Kozinski
--
tsiya [Bob]
http://www.pbase.com/tsiya/
PaulRivers
Veteran Member
Personally, I feel like we have no idea what happened here.
"The first thing I tried to do was dial 911 but I couldn't get it done," Hoven said. "Within seconds he was over the counter. And I'm looking at the wrong end of a 9-millimeter (gun). He was holding it gangster-style" - sideways.
The robber had jumped over the counter, leaving the manager in the aisle. The robber came within a few feet of Hoven.
Hoven said the only thing behind the attacker was a cinder block wall. Thus he pulled his gun and fired three or four shots.
"I was creating a safe zone for myself," he said.
The attacker tried to fire back, but his gun either malfunctioned or the safety had been left on, Hoven said.
The two gunmen ran out of the store./
So a robber has jumped over the counter with a gun. You have time to reach for your gun, pull it out, and start shooting before the guy even has a chance to try to shoot back?
I'm just not sure I understand how this would be possible, at least if the robber had any bullets in his gun or intention to shoot back at all.
"The first thing I tried to do was dial 911 but I couldn't get it done," Hoven said. "Within seconds he was over the counter. And I'm looking at the wrong end of a 9-millimeter (gun). He was holding it gangster-style" - sideways.
The robber had jumped over the counter, leaving the manager in the aisle. The robber came within a few feet of Hoven.
Hoven said the only thing behind the attacker was a cinder block wall. Thus he pulled his gun and fired three or four shots.
"I was creating a safe zone for myself," he said.
The attacker tried to fire back, but his gun either malfunctioned or the safety had been left on, Hoven said.
The two gunmen ran out of the store./
So a robber has jumped over the counter with a gun. You have time to reach for your gun, pull it out, and start shooting before the guy even has a chance to try to shoot back?
I'm just not sure I understand how this would be possible, at least if the robber had any bullets in his gun or intention to shoot back at all.
That is really a good point. If I catch a guy breaking into my car, do I have the right to just shoot him? My car and camera rae not worth a life. On the other hand I do have a right to try to defend my property, and THEN if this thief attempts deadly force, I have a right to respond. So if he runs away, even if I'm armed, I have n right to shoot him.
There are many possibilities in the above scenario, but...
But when someone threatens me with a deadly weapon, there is a clear message. "Do what I tell you to do or I will kill you. There are no modifiers here. He IS going to kill you. And people who are slow to obey often get killed. And people who DO obey sometimes get killed anway.
What kind of nonsense is this? I actually have to take seriously those who say, "This is a question for the authorities."
"Civilised people don't use guns."
As if to say there is anything "civilised" about these situations.
The right of self defense is an inalienable right, that trancends, laws or Constitutions. No law can morally remove the right of self defense. No such law is a valid law.
Dave
Graystar takes an "absolute" position. I gather he feels that if he catches someone breaking into his car, even though there is no threat of deadly force, he feels he has a right to shoot him. He can correct me if I mischaraterise his statement.
Now I wont argue over his charaterisation of England, but it's not as if the people of England live in some sort of non-violent Utopia. I'm sure you would agree with this.
But I'm not Graystar, and I have an absolute right to defend my life from the threat of deadly force. The State has no right to deprive me of the ability to defend myself. Any law that abridges this absolute right is immoral and need not be respected, let alone obeyed.
Dave
I gather that your position is that he should have been curtious enough to ask the robber if his gun was in full working order? Possibly suggest a fix for those trying times when a piece of machinary malfunctions? Maybe offer to give him the address of a reputable company that sells reliable ammunition?
The whole incident was on tape. While the Police have not yet released the tape, they did say that Hoven did no wrong.
Dave
It's actually a common occurrence. When faced with a violent attacker, the best course is always to draw and shoot...even if the attacker has a gun pointed at you. The fact is that a criminal always gets the drop on you...that’s why you’re the victim in the first place. Federal stats say that the safest way out of the encounter is to fight back with a gun.
I have not found any study on the reason why this is so. I would speculate that the cause is simply the psychological impact of a life in danger. A gun is such an overwhelming force that the display of one by an intended victim must involuntarily cause the perpetrator to think “cover” before thinking “shoot him.” This seems to be indicated in many video captures of victims fighting back with a gun...invariably, as soon as the gun comes out the perp turns and runs. The last thing the criminal wanted was a shootout to save his own life. In a study I read on surveys of convicts, robbers said the thing they fear most is an armed victim.
.
I am pro-gun, and a Second Amendment believer. I do think that responsible civilian firearm ownership is a good thing. If some uninvited guests come knocking on my door at night, I'll let them know that unless they are interested in some 00 buckshot, they better go elsewhere. And for an added effect, pump my Mossberg 500. I read a study someplace about a survey taken at prison: most crooks place pump action of a 12ga shotgun as the 'scariest sound ever'.
However, in this particular case, I beg to differ. Most large retail businesses have very strict rules about how employees should behave during a robbery. And the gist of these rules: do nothing to provoke a robber into injuring a customer or an employee, hand over whatever the robber wants. Losing even a few grand worth of cash/merchandise is peanuts compared to a personal injury lawsuit. Many stores expressly prohibit employees from chasing snatch-and-runners.
Really, give it some thought. The robbers were hitting the pharmacy, likely after the drugs. This guy Hoven had no idea how many of them were there, who else were they holding at gun point, weather they were high on something. The guy himself admits he was 'acting out of fear, on an adrenaline high', and you can be quite sure that 'no customers in the store', and 'only a cinder block wall behind the robber' were post-rationalizations, and not something he considered before he grabbed his gun and started blasting - apparently, not even bothering to see if the robbers would flee at the mere sight of his gun.
And as a matter of fact, ricochet off a cinder block wall can be deadly.
Hoven already had a gun pointing at him, and potentially there was an accomplice pointing a gun at a coworker. Yet he decides to play 'the quick and the dead', and it's his sheer dumb luck that robber's gun who 'tried to fire back' did not go off. Or that the other robber's trigger finger wasn't as itchy as Hoven's. In fact, my money is on robbers' guns being props.
If the bad guys were able and willing to fire back, there would be dead people in the store, and the blame would be on Hoven for starting the firefight. Not that it would matter to Hoven, who would likely be dead himself. And Walgreens would face a lawsuit from manager's family for hiring a loose cannon like Hoven.
However, in this particular case, I beg to differ. Most large retail businesses have very strict rules about how employees should behave during a robbery. And the gist of these rules: do nothing to provoke a robber into injuring a customer or an employee, hand over whatever the robber wants. Losing even a few grand worth of cash/merchandise is peanuts compared to a personal injury lawsuit. Many stores expressly prohibit employees from chasing snatch-and-runners.
Really, give it some thought. The robbers were hitting the pharmacy, likely after the drugs. This guy Hoven had no idea how many of them were there, who else were they holding at gun point, weather they were high on something. The guy himself admits he was 'acting out of fear, on an adrenaline high', and you can be quite sure that 'no customers in the store', and 'only a cinder block wall behind the robber' were post-rationalizations, and not something he considered before he grabbed his gun and started blasting - apparently, not even bothering to see if the robbers would flee at the mere sight of his gun.
And as a matter of fact, ricochet off a cinder block wall can be deadly.
Hoven already had a gun pointing at him, and potentially there was an accomplice pointing a gun at a coworker. Yet he decides to play 'the quick and the dead', and it's his sheer dumb luck that robber's gun who 'tried to fire back' did not go off. Or that the other robber's trigger finger wasn't as itchy as Hoven's. In fact, my money is on robbers' guns being props.
If the bad guys were able and willing to fire back, there would be dead people in the store, and the blame would be on Hoven for starting the firefight. Not that it would matter to Hoven, who would likely be dead himself. And Walgreens would face a lawsuit from manager's family for hiring a loose cannon like Hoven.
This is all well and good for someone who is NOT facing a deadly weapon from someone who leaped over the counter at them. You are in fact demanding that the victim do a cost/benefit analysis in two seconds or under.
The man has had a permit for this weapon for a long time. During that period he never felt the need to display this weapon, even though the store had been robbed before. This is an odd way of giving someone the "benefit of the doubt."
The victim felt that the lives of the other employess as well as his own were in danger. Sorry, no, I'm not going to give the benefit of the doubt to the robbers. If I condemn Mr. Hoving, it is because he must have deliberaly shot to miss; a mistake I wouldn't have made...
Dave
I - agree: if trigger has to be pulled, the bullet should not go to waste. If you genuinely believe you are about to get shot, and have a chance to fire first, your opponent better be left in no condition to shoot back.
That said, I maintain that the guy did not keep a cool head, and put his coworkers' lives in jeopardy. He may have not done anything illegal from police PoV, but I can definitely understand the Walgreens position on this.
That said, I maintain that the guy did not keep a cool head, and put his coworkers' lives in jeopardy. He may have not done anything illegal from police PoV, but I can definitely understand the Walgreens position on this.
fwellers
Forum Enthusiast
This is true.
Most perps are cowards and opportunists looking for the weak to prey on and the easy win.
if you have fight, they will generally back off.
About this situation, where Hoven fired 4 times ( apparently at pretty much point blank range ) and the perps gun didn't fire, my first guess is that neither of them had any experience or training in gunfights.
I think the vast majority of people who are not trained in what to expect and how to manage their nerves/adrenaline can have this kind of a reaction. It's like buck fever.
As far as the perpster, he probably freeked out and limp wristed his pistola. Or he may have been stupid enough to leave the safety on as they said, but I bet that Mr. Hoven was basically walking unconcious at that point, as most would be.
Peace,
Floyd
Most perps are cowards and opportunists looking for the weak to prey on and the easy win.
if you have fight, they will generally back off.
About this situation, where Hoven fired 4 times ( apparently at pretty much point blank range ) and the perps gun didn't fire, my first guess is that neither of them had any experience or training in gunfights.
I think the vast majority of people who are not trained in what to expect and how to manage their nerves/adrenaline can have this kind of a reaction. It's like buck fever.
As far as the perpster, he probably freeked out and limp wristed his pistola. Or he may have been stupid enough to leave the safety on as they said, but I bet that Mr. Hoven was basically walking unconcious at that point, as most would be.
--
Peace,
Floyd
fwellers
Forum Enthusiast
Yea but I'll tell you what. You weren't there. If someone is pointing a gun at you, I say it's fair that you may feel your life is in iminent danger ! All bets are off at that point and you are in survival mode ( whatever that happens to be for you at the time ).
And you don't know what the outward behavior of these robbers were. They could have been acting in a way that led the guy to believe there wasn't a good chance of rationality winning the day ie... they will just go in the back where the drugs are, do their buisness and calmly leave.
Nah, you can't really judge the guys reactions unless you were there, ( or see the tape ).
Peace,
Floyd
And you don't know what the outward behavior of these robbers were. They could have been acting in a way that led the guy to believe there wasn't a good chance of rationality winning the day ie... they will just go in the back where the drugs are, do their buisness and calmly leave.
Nah, you can't really judge the guys reactions unless you were there, ( or see the tape ).
--
Peace,
Floyd
If Walgreen has a written policy saying "Oh hear now all ye good employees you cannot carry firearms on our property or ye will be fired" then they have right to fire the guy for breaking company policy. You may not like it but corporate policies are sometimes strange and unusual but they are written policies to be followed by the personnel.
The whole situation sounds a bit strange though. The guy was so nervous he could not dial 911 but not so nervous that he could not draw his weapon? And the baddy just stood there and watched the clerk fumble around with the phone? And then the bad guy leaped the counter, weapon drawn and ready for action but stood there and waited for the clerk to draw his weapon? Do you have any idea at all how long it takes to draw a weapon? Perhaps a matter of seconds but still the other guy has his weapon drawn and just stands there and waits for the clerk to extract his weapon from his pocket? It would seem the clerk did have his weapon in a holster, and if he did carry in a holster, some other employee would have known it and reported it to management. Then the clerk gets that weapon up and ready to fire and he shoots it into a wall? Oh come on, if you are going to pull a gun on a bad guy who already has his weapon in hand you better shoot to kill or badly maim him or there is a very great possibility that while you put two or three shots into a wall you yourself will be a coroner's case before you get that second shot off. No, the whole story sounds fishy to me.
If I were a Walmart manager would I have fired the guy? You bet and wasted no time in doing it. Think about all the things in the above paragraph. You want a guy that damn dumb working in a store with all your personnel and an untold number of customers at risk? No, of course not.
I live in Arizona and we are allowed concealed carry almost any place and at any time. Which means we have people like that clerk carrying concealed firearms who have no idea what to do in a real face down. That worries me. Someone spraying bullets around willy-nilly makes for a real dangerous situation. Now I personally do not carry, usually, but I have done so on occasion but my firearms are basically for home defense. If and when you decide to carry the first question you have to ask, am I willing to pull down on someone and kill them. Not wound or disable but to actually shoot to kill. Do you know how strong your will must be to make a yes decision on that? In a combat, war time face to face combat, something like 10 percent will not actually fire their weapon. They think they do but do not. Just a fact.
No, that clerk should have been fired if for nothing more than being foolish.
The whole situation sounds a bit strange though. The guy was so nervous he could not dial 911 but not so nervous that he could not draw his weapon? And the baddy just stood there and watched the clerk fumble around with the phone? And then the bad guy leaped the counter, weapon drawn and ready for action but stood there and waited for the clerk to draw his weapon? Do you have any idea at all how long it takes to draw a weapon? Perhaps a matter of seconds but still the other guy has his weapon drawn and just stands there and waits for the clerk to extract his weapon from his pocket? It would seem the clerk did have his weapon in a holster, and if he did carry in a holster, some other employee would have known it and reported it to management. Then the clerk gets that weapon up and ready to fire and he shoots it into a wall? Oh come on, if you are going to pull a gun on a bad guy who already has his weapon in hand you better shoot to kill or badly maim him or there is a very great possibility that while you put two or three shots into a wall you yourself will be a coroner's case before you get that second shot off. No, the whole story sounds fishy to me.
If I were a Walmart manager would I have fired the guy? You bet and wasted no time in doing it. Think about all the things in the above paragraph. You want a guy that damn dumb working in a store with all your personnel and an untold number of customers at risk? No, of course not.
I live in Arizona and we are allowed concealed carry almost any place and at any time. Which means we have people like that clerk carrying concealed firearms who have no idea what to do in a real face down. That worries me. Someone spraying bullets around willy-nilly makes for a real dangerous situation. Now I personally do not carry, usually, but I have done so on occasion but my firearms are basically for home defense. If and when you decide to carry the first question you have to ask, am I willing to pull down on someone and kill them. Not wound or disable but to actually shoot to kill. Do you know how strong your will must be to make a yes decision on that? In a combat, war time face to face combat, something like 10 percent will not actually fire their weapon. They think they do but do not. Just a fact.
No, that clerk should have been fired if for nothing more than being foolish.
Exactly, as in my city, all the employees at a restaurant were hauled to a walk-in refrigerated cooler (Room), and each and everyone of the employees were shot in the head by their robber/assassins (killed execution style).
--
BRJR ....(LOL, some of us are quite satisfied as Hobbyists ..)
--
BRJR ....(LOL, some of us are quite satisfied as Hobbyists ..)
Exactly, and whether he is a pharmacist, or had been a photographer or someone of any number of professions/trades/skills, or simply a concealed armed customer in the store for that matter (yes, as a customer, I am always legally armed in such places, it's just that rightfully, no one else knows), he "did no wrong", period. 
--
BRJR ....(LOL, some of us are quite satisfied as Hobbyists ..)
--
BRJR ....(LOL, some of us are quite satisfied as Hobbyists ..)
- Status
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum