Armed robber gets owned!

bounty

Amazing video of an armed robbery, where the desk clerk slyly takes out his glock and owns the robber. He shoots very close to that mother and child. The clerk would probably be jailed for assault if this happened in Ireland.

Short version
Long version

News report



Bonus videos: Cobra Helicopter Gun Cam Footage and an Apache in action

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-805562809436776156
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7830429077752447458

woody

If we did that to the skanger animals (not humans as far as I am concerned) it would be nice to see a few off them ending up on a slab every time they tried to rob some decent person maybe in the future we will have a national skanger cull and wipe them out for good

LundiMardi

it's a damn good thing the woman got out of the way, i can't see yer man thinking clearly in that one!! He surely would have shot one of them in the crossfire if they hadn't moved!!

Oh, and what exactly was he stealing? it just looks like an office.

Lump

It's a motel.

John

RE*AC*TOR

Yeah that's great, some guy is trying to steal money and gets killed. Fantastic, lets all have a laugh at that. God forbid anyone here would have to resort to stealing.

This is what happens when people confuse dirty harry with real life.

weeder

classic!

LundiMardi

oh did the robber die? I didn't realise...





















meh

bounty

oh did the robber die? I didn't realise...

No, the robber got 7 - 11 years in jail. The clerk wore a glock t-shirt to the trial

Yeah that's great, some guy is trying to steal money and gets killed. Fantastic, lets all have a laugh at that. God forbid anyone here would have to resort to stealing.

This is what happens when people confuse dirty harry with real life.

A week or two before the robber verbally threaten the clerk for a room and the robber was forced to leave, he swore revenge

A week later, he returned and tryed to rob the place with .45 Long colt revolver, so "roof top" (the clerk's forum name from one of my gun forums) shots the scum bag

So RE*AC*TOR, he was hardly the victim here

Karl Hungus

woody wrote:

If we did that to the skanger animals (not humans as far as I am concerned) it would be nice to see a few off them ending up on a slab every time they tried to rob some decent person maybe in the future we will have a national skanger cull and wipe them out for good

That's a lovely opinion right there. :rolleyes:

"Animals... Not human... Cull and wipe them out for good..." Surely that kind of talk is best left to the denizens of Stormfront or some such?

Slutmonkey57b

I hope the insurance company doesn't see that video. They'd go mental to see the clerk shooting at the mother and kid like that.

Guy:Incognito

Karl Hungus wrote:

That's a lovely opinion right there. :rolleyes:

"Animals... Not human... Cull and wipe them out for good..." Surely that kind of talk is best left to the denizens of Stormfront or some such?

Scumbags are not a race, so he doesnt need to go to stormfront to hate them. If your willing to break the law, you are gambling with the consequences, which in turn are your own fault and no one elses. He knew the possible repercussions so he deseveres it.

Karl Hungus

Stekelly wrote:

Scumbags are not a race

Never said they were, it's just the typified opinion that's uncannily similar to the style of posting usually found on such sites as the one I've mentioned. I'd be plenty in favour of dealing with skangers and scumbags more harshly than is current, but ranting about non-human scum and wiping people out is a pretty spurious extreme in anyone's books.

Shabadu

That video and everyone who thinks the clerk 'TOTTALY FOCKIN PWNED DAT SKYUMBAG!!1' are utterly abhorrent. Cretins, the lot of you. It's no wonder that society is so bolloxed when you consider that instead of trying to prevent people from pursuing a life of crime, we praise the eejit who shoots them with a handgun, almost hitting a mother and child in the crossfire.

Karl Hungus

Shabadu wrote:

we praise the eejit who shoots them with a handgun, almost hitting a mother and child in the crossfire.

Agreed. He completely missed the damn mother and baby for crying out loud! Two consecutive headshots, then we'd be talking something praise-worthy. That dingus couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.

Heinrich

Karl Hungus wrote:

Never said they were, it's just the typified opinion that's uncannily similar to the style of posting usually found on such sites as the one I've mentioned. I'd be plenty in favour of dealing with skangers and scumbags more harshly than is current, but ranting about non-human scum and wiping people out is a pretty spurious extreme in anyone's books.

I won't show my opinion on this issue but frankly I would like to hear comments from victims of crime regarding the judicial outcome of their misfortunes rather than the armchair know-it-all.

I do wonder about the mindset of some of these criminals, notably the most recent suspected murderer with his 28 previous convictions...

...extreme:mad:

Winters

At leaset he wasnt FPS Doug.


"BOOOOM Headshot"

lodgepole

Thank Christ some of you lot aren't allowed to own weapons. Imagine the bedlam if guns were as readily available here as in the United States. Not only from the scumbags but from the knob-ends who think it's hilarious to shoot people.

Look at the face the mother gives the clerk directly after he fires his shots. She can't believe it.

And the music... For **** sake.

woody

Karl Hungus wrote:

That's a lovely opinion right there. :rolleyes:

"Animals... Not human... Cull and wipe them out for good..." Surely that kind of talk is best left to the denizens of Stormfront or some such?

Nope Skangers are filth pure and simple there choose to be that way against society and I choose to live right and by the law, I am only express disgust but I would rather do more.... And as for stormfront they are idiots.... skangers are animals and treat joe bloggs normal citizen like a slush fund for there promiscious.immoral and criminal like behaviour.

I would thinking most citizens in ireland and also non-nationals would agree they are scum as was that scumbag robbing the motel

Pigman II

Sorry I can't really get into that kind of footage unless it's accompanied by two souless grinning idiots spewing reassuring puns that appeal to honest godfearing middle-class America.

"You can be sure the robber didn't get a *bang* out of that! The gunman is currently booked into a nearby motel for 7 to 11 ..... *years*"

Ah genius those writers!

muletide

on a side note anyone know the song in the long version

bounty

Pigman II wrote:

"You can be sure the robber didn't get a *bang* out of that! The gunman is currently booked into a nearby motel for 7 to 11 ..... *years*"

Ah genius those writers!

So you watched "Worlds most violent motel robberies 17" too?

I found a post from the clerk in the video, on a forum:

Rooftop Voter wrote:

Well I am the shooter, Rooftop Voter.
Obviously there are a couple of Nay sayers, which is fine. Some may not have the instestinal fortitude to defend their own lives. If you want to take that chance that a robber isn't going to kill you after giving up cash, or what not, that's fine and tottaly your choice. It's not mine. Do you really think I gave two ****s about the money in the cash register??? NO, I'm worried about the guy holding a big ****ing .45 revolver at me my friend. Would I have been fast enough to draw down on the guy if my she wasn't there, I don't know, probably not, but I have been tought the best action is reaction from the person who trained me, which would mean I would have to come up with another plan and quick, but that wasn't the case. I worked with what I had. You have split seconds to thing about what's going on, and what to do, and lives could possibly hang in the balance, have fun making the choice. Also, I was in the middle of trying to tell him to drop the gun when he jumped back and I started to see a gun come up, that's when I ducked. If you don't want to get shot, don't make sudden movements in that situation, especially with your gun hand. When I popped back up I had less than a second to decide whether or not I was going to fire. Do you shoot a person who just a tenth of second earilier had a gun on you, or do you wait to see if he's going to shoot you first??? No brainer to me. Was I scared, hell yeah, but I've learned through a lot of other past expierances how to keep it together when the **** hit's the proverbial fan. Also, I am not an un trained shooter. Quite the opposite, I train others. I am a firearms instructor here in Ohio, and shoot over 1,000 rounds of ammo monthly (usually) between an assortement of "assualt rifles" and mixed handguns, usually in the .40 or 9mm. I also wasn't that close to the kid, a little over 3 or so feet at least, that's enough room for me. You can doubt me, and second guess me all you'd like, which is fine, every one is entitled to their own opinion. I might be back later.

steveland?

Shabadu wrote:

That video and everyone who thinks the clerk 'TOTTALY FOCKIN PWNED DAT SKYUMBAG!!1' are utterly abhorrent. Cretins, the lot of you. It's no wonder that society is so bolloxed when you consider that instead of trying to prevent people from pursuing a life of crime, we praise the eejit who shoots them with a handgun, almost hitting a mother and child in the crossfire.

You've obviously never been robbed at gunpoint...

Happened to me in work once (and then again the next week but I wasn't there that time) and I'd just LOVE to have had something to put holes in that guy with...

Fair enough it was an incredibly stupid thing to do with the mother and child there but if they hadn't been there I'd have no problem whatsoever with him blasting that bastard to pieces...

Edit: btw the guy who robbed us that time was just looking for money so myself and the other guy on that night just stood aside and handed him the money... not worth getting shot over... but it's just the fact that some scumbag decides he has the right to pull a f*cking gun on you that got me so pissed... not the money that was lost (which was bugger all cos we tend to keep the till as empty as possible in case that ever happens)

Dooom

Karl Hungus wrote:

Agreed. He completely missed the damn mother and baby for crying out loud! Two consecutive headshots, then we'd be talking something praise-worthy. That dingus couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.

Rofl

Dooom

Shabadu wrote:

That video and everyone who thinks the clerk 'TOTTALY FOCKIN PWNED DAT SKYUMBAG!!1' are utterly abhorrent. Cretins, the lot of you. It's no wonder that society is so bolloxed when you consider that instead of trying to prevent people from pursuing a life of crime, we praise the eejit who shoots them with a handgun, almost hitting a mother and child in the crossfire.

Ah well tbh, I think that'd prevent him for doing it again for a while. Either that of he'll just get a bigger gun and shoot first. Meh.

Töpher

The thing is, the robber probably bought the gun legally from the American equivalent to Asda or something. Christ, its a motel, can't have been more than a few hundred in the till, which insurance would have covered. Shooting with the mother and child so close like that was about the stupidest thing he could have done there, except for pissing on the robbers shoes.

Karl Hungus

Mr_Know_It_ALL wrote:

ahhhhh... its never a proper thrad without the PC brigade... would ye ever get real.... and as for that storm front comment... what has this got to do with a bunch of white power/pride idiots. this is about self defence. if you watch the video properly you can see the angle makes it look like the shots where closer to the woman and child than they really where. not only that but the shots where being fired from left to right so they where in no danger what so ever.

Ahhhh... would you ever read what I was refering to in the first place with the stormfront comment before talking bollocks? Or how could woody's comments be anything to do with "Self defence"? And me.... PC Brigade? I think not.

Sand

Shooting with the mother and child so close like that was about the stupidest thing he could have done there, except for pissing on the robbers shoes.

Because she and the child were so close to the clerk when he started firing hed have had to turn about 30-45% (estimate - hard to see from the camera angle) away from the robber to hit them, or the mother would have to do something really stupid like step into the line of fire. They seem safe, if shocked, because theyre so close.

Personally I think the clerk pulling the gun was incredibly risky to begin with, and shooting the guy 3 times in the back as he ran out was just a tad excessive. I would, like others already, not consider the contents of a till worth a potential bloodbath. But he may have seen a chance to draw the gun and given how nervous the clerk would have been having a gun put in his face by some lowlife and the risk involved, its understandable he wouldnt stop shooting until he was 100% sure the robber was down and out. If he hadnt shot him the robber would have escaped, and its possible the robber would have returned a week, or a month or even a year later to finish what he started. Im glad the robber got what was coming to him, and Im glad the two clerks and the mother and child got out safely.

On the other hand, in Ireland, shooting a guy 3 times in the back is seen as murder by the law, regardless of context, and the clerk would go down for it much like the farmer in England, or that more recent case in Ireland where knackers tried to rob another farmer. So the clerk has another reason to be glad the gun lobby is so huge in the US.

DemonOfTheFall

The robber deserved a back full of lead. Pity the clerk didn't have a desert eagle or something a bit meatier to really f**k him up.

Zapp Brannigan

I just keep thinking of that Simpsons episode.
"You missed the baby, you missed the blind guy...."

Ciaran500

Einst&#252 wrote: »

The thing is, the robber probably bought the gun legally from the American equivalent to Asda or something. Christ, its a motel, can't have been more than a few hundred in the till, which insurance would have covered. Shooting with the mother and child so close like that was about the stupidest thing he could have done there, except for pissing on the robbers shoes.

As was quoted earlier it not about protecting the money, its protecting yourself from someone pointing a gun at you who has presumably threatened to kill you.

Terry

Mr_Know_It_ALL wrote:

this is about self defence. if you watch the video properly you can see the angle makes it look like the shots where closer to the woman and child than they really where. not only that but the shots where being fired from left to right so they where in no danger what so ever.

that's how the cold war started.

Dooom

julep wrote:

that's how the cold war started.

It's how all wars started.

transylman

I've seen worse. A crook walks in to a clothes shop or something in america. The guy at the register pulls out his own gun and a shoot out ensues with the crook taking cover behind a clothes rack. The crook is eventually taken out with some body shots. The guy working in the shop then walks over to the him and pumps some more shots into the non-moving body in the ground. I'm not going to post a link because frankly I found the whole thing disgusting.

BigWilly

That's what you get tbh.

Terry

i've had a gun put to my head on two seperate occasions (long story), but i never felt the need to go out and get a gun myself in case it happens again.
of course, i don't live in a country where you can go out and buy a gun and a head of lettuce in the same shop.
the simple solution would be to stop selling guns and ammo to people. the number of gun owners would eventually dwindle.

Dooom

julep wrote:

the simple solution would be to stop selling guns and ammo to people. the number of gun owners would eventually dwindle.

But surely then the gun trade would switch solely to the black market, and it'd probably turn out a lot worse. It's the same thing with (some) drugs, legalise them, and you can control them. Outlaw them, and it's going to make things worse.

Sand

the simple solution would be to stop selling guns and ammo to people. the number of gun owners would eventually dwindle.

The number of legal gun owners you mean. Irish criminals have no bother acessing firepower up to and including assault rifles for example.

ronbyrne2005

pulling guns on thieves usually leads to a more dangerous scenario,thats why police advise you to comply with the robber and give him/her the money,when theres innocent customers at the scene its highly irresponsible to start a firefight,if your alone in a store and someone tries to hold you up with a gun its ok but i still think your more likely to be shot if you fight back, he used the girl as a shield and she would have been the one soaking up the lead if the robber had fired several shots at mr gung ho.

this glorification of guns video montage has been brought to you in conjunction with the NRA,the NRA-Keeping republicans in the whitehouse and outlaws in the dead house for a hundred years !

ronbyrne2005

its disgusting that america nd uk still make fortunes from selling weapons to countries and dealers who will sell them to african asian and south american hotspots.the global arms trade needs erradicating.

Dooom

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

pulling guns on thieves usually leads to a more dangerous scenario,thats why police advise you to comply with the robber and give him/her the money,when theres innocent customers at the scene its highly irresponsible to start a firefight,if your alone in a store and someone tries to hold you up with a gun its ok but i still think your more likely to be shot if you fight back, he used the girl as a shield and she would have been the one soaking up the lead if the robber had fired several shots at mr gung ho.

But if the robberies are taking place on a regular basis, the victim's going to be sick to death of it. So he/she'll most likely stand up for themselves. A lot of these incidents happen that don't end up with the perp being caught, so why should the scum get away with it?

Imo, I support the clerk in what he did. The fact that he was a firearms instructor aswell, re-inforces my support of him. He knew what he was doing, and had the confidence to pull it off.
Granted there's a million and one different scenarios that could've come out of it, such as the gun jammed, the robber took a human shield and killed the clerk.
But that didn't happen. It ended (more or less) well enough.

RE*AC*TOR

Surprised the robber wasn't killed by that. Still, it was probably more by luck than design that he survived. Glorifying that kind of use of force is in bad taste IMO.

Terry

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

its disgusting that america nd uk still make fortunes from selling weapons to countries and dealers who will sell them to african asian and south american hotspots.the global arms trade needs erradicating.

indeed. and then invading these countries because they have too many weapons and are demed a threat to democracy. and let us not forget where the ira got most of their weapons.

Sand

and let us not forget where the ira got most of their weapons.

Libya?

Dooom

Yeah, IIRC Sand's right. Although Trenton (New Jersey) sounds familiar. I'm pretty sure they procured some AP rounds from there. I'll browse around and see if I can link it.
(Keeping myself occupied by posting around forums is helping to clear the hangover, somewhat.:o )

Manic Moran

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

Surprised the robber wasn't killed by that. Still, it was probably more by luck than design that he survived.

True. If you're pulling the trigger, you have no issue with killing the person on the other end. "Shoot to stop", not "Shoot to wound"

Glorifying that kind of use of force is in bad taste IMO.

Agreed, to a point. I really could have done without making a music video of it.

Now, that said, that shooter is really quite skilled, better than most cops, I would wager. I've been around firearms most of my adult life, and he drew, and fired three aimed shots that hit their target in about one second. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't do that well, and I'm a decent shot. The kid/woman were never in danger from the clerk, if anyone put them in danger, it was the guy with the mask on his head who started the deal.

btw the guy who robbed us that time was just looking for money so myself and the other guy on that night just stood aside and handed him the money... not worth getting shot over...

Not the issue. If someone is pointing a firearm (or even a knife) at me, and threatening to kill me for money, that person has demonstrated that he believes it's worth killing over. (He may not, actually, but how is the person on the receiving end to know what?). If he is willing to kill, he must also be willing to take the counter-risk that he could be killed in the process.

NTM

astrofool

On the point of stopping gun use, had he not had access to guns, he would probably have gone for a big knife, and more than likely used the mother and daughter as leverage to get the money. People kill people not guns (although I would be on the side of outlawing guns if it could be done properly, which it can't anyway), if guns weren't around it'd be a board with a nail in it...

Dyr

woody wrote:

Nope Skangers are filth pure and simple there choose to be that way against society and I choose to live right and by the law, I am only express disgust but I would rather do more.... And as for stormfront they are idiots.... skangers are animals and treat joe bloggs normal citizen like a slush fund for there promiscious.immoral and criminal like behaviour.

I would thinking most citizens in ireland and also non-nationals would agree they are scum as was that scumbag robbing the motel

I think you should just be happy that the general public dont get to decide who's a scumbag and should be culled...

Nice to see the guy expressed his right to bear arms from behind his fellow employee with a kid in the firing line too...what a sfuking hero :rolleyes:

steveland?

Manic Moran wrote:

Not the issue. If someone is pointing a firearm (or even a knife) at me, and threatening to kill me for money, that person has demonstrated that he believes it's worth killing over. (He may not, actually, but how is the person on the receiving end to know what?). If he is willing to kill, he must also be willing to take the counter-risk that he could be killed in the process.

If you'd read past the part of my post you quoted you'd realise that I said that it WASN'T the money I was referring to... it was the fact that some scumbag decides he has the right to point a gun in your (my) face then they deserver everything they get

Manic Moran

steveland? wrote:

If you'd read past the part of my post you quoted you'd realise that I said that it WASN'T the money I was referring to... it was the fact that some scumbag decides he has the right to point a gun in your (my) face then they deserver everything they get

I fully agree with you. It's just that unlike you, a large number of people don't actually think about that bit. They get as far as 'It's only money, not worth hurting people over' and don't go any further in the thought process.

NTM

Slutmonkey57b

Manic Moran wrote:

Now, that said, that shooter is really quite skilled, better than most cops, I would wager. I've been around firearms most of my adult life, and he drew, and fired three aimed shots that hit their target in about one second. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't do that well, and I'm a decent shot. The kid/woman were never in danger from the clerk, if anyone put them in danger, it was the guy with the mask on his head who started the deal.

this is why the insurance company would crucify you for standing up to a robber though - it doesn't matter whether the clerk was confident is his own ability to aim and miss bystanders, he has no control over the robber's actions. He may be able to judge for himself "Hey, I could hit that", but he can't judge "hey, if I shoot, there's no way the robber will shoot a bystander, or take a hostage, or kill my co-worker instead of me." If I were the owner of the shop, I'd sack the clerk on the spot. If I were working with him, I'd sue the fcker. Somebody wants to rob you? Give them the money. It's only money. Going home unharmed is more important.

Ciaran500

You are still miss the point. He didn't shoot the robber cause he wanted to protect the money, he shot cause he didn't want to get killed by the robber. As you said "he has no control over the robber's actions" so even if he did give the money its no guarntee that the robber wouldn't of shot someone.