Armed robber gets owned!

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.

Hobbes

Ciaran500 wrote:

so even if he did give the money its no guarntee that the robber wouldn't of shot someone.

speculation tbh. If the robber was intent on killing all he had to do was put a few rounds into the woman and child and that would get the attention of the clerk to not dick around and pull a gun on him.

Anyway I thought he was in the process of pulling/showing a gun when teller open fired on him.

Slutmonkey57b

Ciaran500 wrote:

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.

Clearly from the guy's attitude in the film, and the fact that he turned up in a glock t-shirt at the trial, he wasn't acting out of self preservation, he was acting the gun toting hero which he'd been itching to do for some time.

Very few armed robbers are actually interested in killing. Those that are, aren't going to be put off by a gun toting clerk. The standard advice in this situation from the professionals is simple - give them the money, quietly, don't say anything or do anything sudden, and don't bull**** or waste time. Once they have the money, they'll leave. And you are missing the point that by pulling the gun, he was actually making the situation more dangerous - he had no idea how the robber was going to react and he clearly didn't care. He didn't care if the robber grabbed the mother and baby, he didn't care if anyone got caught in the crossfire, and he didn't care if the whole thing went badly. He only cared about pulling his own gun and taking a crack, **** the consequences.

astrofool

what robbers are interested in is getting away, and if he thought by shooting one of the people in the shop, he could escape easier, he probably would, remember, he's already robbing the shop, so already made a decision to commit a crime, if he gets caught, he'll go to jail, so his number one priority will be not to get caught.

Manic Moran

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.

Well, let's see. The clerk went home unharmed. The clerk's colleague went home unharmed. The woman with kid went home unharmed. The crook went to hospital/jail instead of getting away with money, and the ability to pull exactly the same stunt the next day at the next motel. I see that as a win all around. (I would also wager that the motel this happened at is not going to be targetted again any time soon: "Let's see.. I know this motel has people with guns, that motel might not. I wonder which one I should rob?").

Clearly from the guy's attitude in the film,

Attitude? What attitude? Not as if he went gloating, doing gang signs, or whatever. Looked pretty much in control of himself to me. The Glock T-shirt at the trial is pretty much a finger to the 'anti-gunners'. There is much heard in the media of illegal use of firearms, there is something of a struggle to get the 'legal use of firearms' side of the story a bit more public. It certainly did the job.

The standard advice in this situation from the professionals is simple - give them the money, quietly, don't say anything or do anything sudden, and don't bull**** or waste time

Someone is a professional at getting robbed? I'd recommend a new line of work for them. Otherwise, if you're referring to law enforcement types in the US, there is much difference of opinion amongst various heads of departments over the concepts of armed citizenry, and even within some departments there appears to be a difference of opinion depending on how close to the street you are. Take SFPD's difference over the recent handgun ban: Chief Fong was in favour, but the SFPD association was not. You also have recent legislation such as the "Stand your ground" law in Florida, or the Castle Law in California or Georgia. (OK, California isn't recent, it's always been that way). If the 'professional viewpoint' is exclusively to be meek, then there would be little support for such laws.

And you are missing the point that by pulling the gun, he was actually making the situation more dangerous - he had no idea how the robber was going to react and he clearly didn't care.

I wouldn't care either. Once the pistol is drawn, the idea is not to give the chap on the receiving end time to react. Taking hostages etc is kindof hard if you have already received a few .40 rounds to the chest. People thinking 'I'll draw my weapon and scare him off' are a danger for precisely the reasons you mention. If you draw, you shoot. If you shoot, keep pulling the trigger until the target is incapacitated. End of story, it's the only way to reduce uncertainty.

He only cared about pulling his own gun and taking a crack, **** the consequences.

Funnily enough, the criminal only cared about pulling his own gun and getting money, he didn't think through the consequences either.

NTM

Slutmonkey57b

Manic Moran wrote:

Well, let's see. The clerk went home unharmed. The clerk's colleague went home unharmed. The woman with kid went home unharmed.

All of which is pure blind luck for the clerk - not planning. He is taking other people's lives in his hands, which he has no right to do. He's perfectly happy he did it. The other people in the video don't look so sure, do they? But I guess they don't have the right to decide whether or not to escalate a robbery into a gunfight, only the "hero" of the piece, eh?

Attitude? What attitude? Not as if he went gloating, doing gang signs, or whatever. Looked pretty much in control of himself to me.

Really? The whole final third of the short film consists of him gloating about shooting the robber with a manic-eyed picture of him pointing his gun at the camera, with the tagline "Bad day to be <whoever>, great day to be a glock owner". Clearly then, not a gloater, or someone who was looking for an excuse to act out a dirty harry fantasy.

The Glock T-shirt at the trial is pretty much a finger to the 'anti-gunners'. There is much heard in the media of illegal use of firearms, there is something of a struggle to get the 'legal use of firearms' side of the story a bit more public. It certainly did the job.

That frantic mother shielding her child with her body from irresponsible and unnecessary gunfire is a definate convert I'd say. Job Well Done.

Someone is a professional at getting robbed? I'd recommend a new line of work for them. Otherwise, if you're referring to law enforcement types in the US, there is much difference of opinion amongst various heads of departments over the concepts of armed citizenry, and even within some departments there appears to be a difference of opinion depending on how close to the street you are. Take SFPD's difference over the recent handgun ban: Chief Fong was in favour, but the SFPD association was not. You also have recent legislation such as the "Stand your ground" law in Florida, or the Castle Law in California or Georgia. (OK, California isn't recent, it's always been that way). If the 'professional viewpoint' is exclusively to be meek, then there would be little support for such laws.

Ha ha. I'm talking about professional opinion from law enforcement in a country which don't have such suicidally high rates of gun deaths (most of which, contrary to scaremongers, is actually domestic, not criminal). Ask any policeman over here and he'll tell you: install a silent alarm, and hand over the money without fuss. Robbers are interested in getting in, getting the money, and getting out. They use guns to make it quicker and because they're generally nervous, not because they've got an itching to kill someone.

I wouldn't care either. Once the pistol is drawn, the idea is not to give the chap on the receiving end time to react. Taking hostages etc is kindof hard if you have already received a few .40 rounds to the chest.

Exactly the kind of thinking that labels the clerk, and you as a moron. Your response to "what if he got someone killed because he wanted to show off his gun" is "I wouldn't care". Taking hostages is kind of hard if you've got a few rounds to the chest eh? Guess what - stopping a motel getting robbed of a few hundred dollars isn't worth very much if someone else ends up dead on the floor. That's assuming the clerk hit the robber, the robber didn't fire back, the gun didn't jam, there wasn't an accomplice waiting outside; starting to get my point yet? He took a massive chance pulling his gun. He lucked out and got away with it. My point is, he had no right to assume that responsibility given that there were other people crammed into that small space. He is not law enforcement. He is a motel clerk with an attitude.

People thinking 'I'll draw my weapon and scare him off' are a danger for precisely the reasons you mention. If you draw, you shoot. If you shoot, keep pulling the trigger until the target is incapacitated. End of story, it's the only way to reduce uncertainty.

It's a guaranteed way of losing control of the situation is what it is.

Funnily enough, the criminal only cared about pulling his own gun and getting money, he didn't think through the consequences either.

Which is why armed robbery isn't a long term career - they end up in jail a lot.

Turner

Hobbes wrote:

speculation tbh. If the robber was intent on killing all he had to do was put a few rounds into the woman and child and that would get the attention of the clerk to not dick around and pull a gun on him.

Anyway I thought he was in the process of pulling/showing a gun when teller open fired on him.

Do you remember charlie chawkes robbery.

He gave over the money and they still shot him.

3 unarmed Gardai chased the two robbers, and the robbers fired on them. The unarmed Gardai arrested both men.

Abstract

That seems crazy to me.(sorry if im repeating someone) regardless of his training or whether or not it was the 'right' thing to do it seems like he's a bit of a psycho to make a video of it where it repeats him shooting some guy over and over again.Even if the robber had a gun in his face he didnt use it. Probably would have shot the clerk straight off if he was gonna.Why risk killing someone over some money?In fairness the thief is not going to come back and 'Finish the job'.
And ya the close up of him with the gun pointed at the camera?Ya i'm real glad people like him have guns.
I dont understand why people are prasing him so much.
He's got a screw loose. Probably thinks he's a freaking superhero and kill someone next time.

Slutmonkey57b

Chawke's robbery wasn't quite the run of the mill affair though.

And the garda didn't need to be armed to arrest them.

Manic Moran

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

All of which is pure blind luck for the clerk - not planning.

You so sure about that? In terms of pure technique, I can't fault him. He covered his move to draw his sidearm, executed a clean and rapid draw while moving away from behind his co-worker, followed by three rapid and accurate shots, and he continued to cover the target for some time after incapacitation. I don't think the SAS could have done it any better.

He is taking other people's lives in his hands, which he has no right to do. He's perfectly happy he did it. The other people in the video don't look so sure, do they?

The other people in the video are quite probably confused and scared. That is understandable. Gunfights tend to be scary if you're not prepared for them. I'm perfectly happy he did shot the guy as well. So, it seems, are the various law enforcement/prosecution agencies in the state/county, as if they were disapproving, they might have said so.

But I guess they don't have the right to decide whether or not to escalate a robbery into a gunfight, only the "hero" of the piece, eh?

Neither they, nor the clerk, apparently had the right to decide whether or not they would have a peaceful evening without having a firearm pointed at them in threat of use of lethal force. If there were no robbery, there likely would have been no gunplay.

Really? The whole final third of the short film consists of him gloating about shooting the robber with a manic-eyed picture of him pointing his gun at the camera, with the tagline "Bad day to be <whoever>, great day to be a glock owner".

Fair enough. I stopped watching the video when the motel footage was repetetive.

Clearly then, not a gloater, or someone who was looking for an excuse to act out a dirty harry fantasy.

Perhaps he was proud of the fact that he carried out a civic duty and stood up to crime. Unless you're saying it is our civic duty to meekly be robbed in the hope that the police might eventually catch up with him after the fact. (Two news flashes here: 1) In the US, the police are under no legal obligation to you, the individual. 2) In the UK, the 7th of Peel's Principles of Policing states explicitly that the only difference between police and the public at large is that the police are paid full time to carry out the duties incumbent upon all citizens. I fear this latter fact has apparently been forgotten over time)

That frantic mother shielding her child with her body from irresponsible and unnecessary gunfire is a definate convert I'd say. Job Well Done.

You might be surprised.

Ask any policeman over here and he'll tell you: install a silent alarm, and hand over the money without fuss.

Probably because in Ireland, the laws are different, and tend not to allow one to be armed. "God created all men," the saying goes, "Samuel Colt made them all equal." If you're not equipped to provide any resistance, then handing over the money without fuss is most definitely the correct thing to do.

Robbers are interested in getting in, getting the money, and getting out. They use guns to make it quicker and because they're generally nervous, not because they've got an itching to kill someone.

Never bluff, unless you're prepared to have your bluff called. If you point something that appears to be a weapon at someone, expect that someone to treat it as if it's a lethal weapon and as if you're prepared to use it. If you think that's harsh or disproportionate, tough. You shouldn't be playing around with firearms or things that look like firearms. Or knives, either, for that matter, if you're threatening people with them.

Exactly the kind of thinking that labels the clerk, and you as a moron. Your response to "what if he got someone killed because he wanted to show off his gun" is "I wouldn't care".

Bull. I stated specifically that merely displaying a firearm is the wrong thing to do, and just makes the situation get further out of hand. I said it before, I'll say it again. If you produce a weapon in a defensive situation, you shoot. Do not do the one without the other.

Taking hostages is kind of hard if you've got a few rounds to the chest eh? Guess what - stopping a motel getting robbed of a few hundred dollars isn't worth very much if someone else ends up dead on the floor.

Depends on who ends up dead, really.

That's assuming the clerk hit the robber, the robber didn't fire back, the gun didn't jam, there wasn't an accomplice waiting outside; starting to get my point yet?

The first is an issue of personal skill. The clerk evidently believed he had the ability to hit him. The second may be a matter of timing, judgement, or luck. Probably all three. The third is a mechanical issue, which if carried with one round in the chamber, is almost certain not to happen. (And Glocks are known for their reliability as it is). The fourth can be mitigated by (a) the fact that, as you point out, most crooks aren't interested in shooting people, thus accomplice would probably leave the area rather than come in shooting, and (b) maintaining the pistol in the ready position, until it is clear that there is no accomplice. (Which the shooter in the video did). Is it a guarantee? No. But close enough for government work.

He is not law enforcement.

Given that professional law enforcement were not there to enforce the various laws against robbery or assault, he was the next best thing, as has been permitted by the legislation of the jurisdiction. That the police cannot be everywhere at once is the precise reason that concealed weapons permits are issued.

He is a motel clerk with an attitude.

True. But there's nothing wrong with a bit of attitude if you can back it up. This guy can.

It's a guaranteed way of losing control of the situation is what it is.

Remind me never to take a guarantee from you at your word. If he lost control of the situation, please let me know where.

Which is why armed robbery isn't a long term career - they end up in jail a lot.

Or in the US, in the morgue. Saves the cost of prosecution too. Still, the 'chopping off of a hand' per Sharia law sounds pretty effective. I'll wager you never get someone convicted a third time with that punishment.

NTM

Slutmonkey57b

Manic Moran wrote:

He covered his move to draw his sidearm, executed a clean and rapid draw while moving away from behind his co-worker, followed by three rapid and accurate shots, and he continued to cover the target for some time after incapacitation. I don't think the SAS could have done it any better.

Did he have his co-workers permission to use them as a shield while he whipped out his gun? Don't think so.

[repeating the same point again]
He is not the SAS, or the police, and does not have the right or the training to escalate a robbery into a gunfight. He may want to be, but he isn't.

The other people in the video are quite probably confused and scared. That is understandable. Gunfights tend to be scary if you're not prepared for them.

Again, you don't seem to care that the other people have just as much right to hand over the cash peacefully as this gimp did to start shooting. At least by handing over the money, the situation does not have the potential to get worse. Did Glock boy do anything to prepare the other people in the room for a gunfight? No.

I'm perfectly happy he did shot the guy as well. So, it seems, are the various law enforcement/prosecution agencies in the state/county, as if they were disapproving, they might have said so.

How do you know they didn't?

Neither they, nor the clerk, apparently had the right to decide whether or not they would have a peaceful evening without having a firearm pointed at them in threat of use of lethal force. If there were no robbery, there likely would have been no gunplay.

Again, you're choosing to miss the point. Crime happens. How you react to crime is a choice.

Perhaps he was proud of the fact that he carried out a civic duty and stood up to crime. Unless you're saying it is our civic duty to meekly be robbed in the hope that the police might eventually catch up with him after the fact. (Two news flashes here: 1) In the US, the police are under no legal obligation to you, the individual. 2) In the UK, the 7th of Peel's Principles of Policing states explicitly that the only difference between police and the public at large is that the police are paid full time to carry out the duties incumbent upon all citizens. I fear this latter fact has apparently been forgotten over time)

Bobby Peel is no longer in charge of the police.

Is it not his civic duty to not put a small child in the middle of a gunfight? Again, he had the choice of what to do. If he wanted to shoot, he could have chased out the door after the robber had left, thereby ensuring he was the only one in danger. He didn't. He whipped out his gun, using his co-worker as a shield, because it clearly makes him feel like a Big Man, and he didn't give a **** if things went wrong.

Probably because in Ireland, the laws are different, and tend not to allow one to be armed. "God created all men," the saying goes, "Samuel Colt made them all equal." If you're not equipped to provide any resistance, then handing over the money without fuss is most definitely the correct thing to do.

And we don't have the same levels of violent crime either. Robberies here don't end up with gunfights because trigger-happy civilians aren't putting it up to nervous criminals. The saying also goes "hand over the money and no-one gets hurt". I prefer not to get hurt.

Never bluff, unless you're prepared to have your bluff called. If you point something that appears to be a weapon at someone, expect that someone to treat it as if it's a lethal weapon and as if you're prepared to use it. If you think that's harsh or disproportionate, tough. You shouldn't be playing around with firearms or things that look like firearms. Or knives, either, for that matter, if you're threatening people with them.

Again, choosing to miss the point. The point is that an armed robber is using the gun as a tool to frighten people into making the robbery happen more quickly and with less hassle. Because they don't go in there intending to kill, they go in intending to rob. Pull a gun out and the situation escalates - the robber is now faced with decisions not just about how to rob the place but also how to get out unharmed. This means it more likely that they will either start shooting, or take a hostage. Neither of which are good things.

The first is an issue of personal skill. The clerk evidently believed he had the ability to hit him.

I'll repeat, again:

He is not a trained policeman, used to dealing with armed robberies and potential hostage situations, so whatever he believes about what he could do, he had no right to make that choice on behalf of everyone else in that room, putting their lives at more risk than they were already.

Is it a guarantee? No. But close enough for government work.

He doesn't work for the government. He is a motel clerk. Not Dirty Harry.

Given that professional law enforcement were not there to enforce the various laws against robbery or assault, he was the next best thing, as has been permitted by the legislation of the jurisdiction. That the police cannot be everywhere at once is the precise reason that concealed weapons permits are issued.

The police aren't there? That's what silent alarms are for. Press the button and they're there in a couple of minutes.

Remind me never to take a guarantee from you at your word. If he lost control of the situation, please let me know where.

At exactly the point he stopped doing what was safe, namely handing over the money, and pulling out his gun. At that point, you'll note, he was standing behind his co-worker. What a hero. After he pulled out his gun, it was all down to luck.

Or in the US, in the morgue. Saves the cost of prosecution too. Still, the 'chopping off of a hand' per Sharia law sounds pretty effective. I'll wager you never get someone convicted a third time with that punishment.

NTM

[southern hillbilly accent]
We Gon Dun Have us a HANGIN' Boooy![/accent]