Pizza driver fatally shoots would-be robber in Hollywood, Florida

[jnelsoninjax]

A man, described by witnesses as a pizza delivery driver, told investigators that he fired shots at two armed robbers, killing one of them, Hollywood police said.

Officers were using a helicopter and K9 units to search for the second person. He ran off after the shooting in the parking lot near a Domino's in the 5700 block of Hollywood Boulevard at 12:53 a.m. Wednesday, said Officer Meredith Elrich.

"The victim was approached in his vehicle by two male, masked, armed subjects who had their faces covered," she said. "During the robbery attempt one suspect was shot by the victim [and] the suspect died on scene."

The second suspect ran westbound and police were still looking for him more than eight hours after the robbery attempt and fatal shooting, she said.

A black Toyota with several bullet holes was removed from the parking lot on a flatbed tow truck about 7 a.m. It was unknown who the car belonged to.

"The victim was uninjured," Elrich said.

No names have been released but the investigation is continuing, she said.

Source

[rr_dRock]

I guess there's not 300 comments on this one because it doesn't fit the narrative of "Guns have never saved anyones life"

 

Good on the pizza guy. We had one chopped up with a hatchet here a couple years back. It is a thankless, terrifying job.

[PsYcHoKiLLa]

I guess there's not 300 comments on this one because it doesn't fit the narrative of "Guns have never saved anyones life"

 

Good on the pizza guy. We had one chopped up with a hatchet here a couple years back. It is a thankless, terrifying job.

 

Yeah, good on him for shooting someone who hadn't shot at him. Cos he couldn't just give them the money, the insurance company would've paid his employers, he would've got some kind of compensation, they would have found the suspects eventually and no-one would be dead.

[Rippleman]

I guess there's not 300 comments on this one because it doesn't fit the narrative of "Guns have never saved anyones life"

 

You are crazy if you think anyone has ever said this.

 

 

 

 

The stray shots could have easily killed more people. It is NOT known whether the suspects also had guns, simply says "armed". It was an extremely lucky shooting/event in anycase.

[Lamp0]

I guess there's not 300 comments on this one because it doesn't fit the narrative of "Guns have never saved anyones life"

 

Good on the pizza guy. We had one chopped up with a hatchet here a couple years back. It is a thankless, terrifying job.

 

If the armed thief had instead shot & killed the armed pizza man the guns would still have "saved a life". Some how I don't think you would have pointed that out had that been the scenario.

[adrynalyne]

Yeah, good on him for shooting someone who hadn't shot at him. Cos he couldn't just give them the money, the insurance company would've paid his employers, he would've got some kind of compensation, they would have found the suspects eventually and no-one would be dead.

We had a Pizza Hut here a couple decades ago 15 15 years ago that was robbed at gun point.

 

The employees and manager complied with the robbers and gave them whatever they liked and even opened the safe for them.

 

They then lined them up on their knees and executed each one of them.

 

I knew some of those people.

 

Clearly your solution isn't exactly infallible and finding out after the fact is too late...right? Lets spare the criminals though.

 

http://www.scrippsmedia.com/kgun9/news/Sister-remembers-brutal-Pizza-Hut-murder-240966401.html

[DocM]

Score one for the gene pool

[MikadoWu]

Yeah, good on him for shooting someone who hadn't shot at him. Cos he couldn't just give them the money, the insurance company would've paid his employers, he would've got some kind of compensation, they would have found the suspects eventually and no-one would be dead.

Do you know that the Armed Suspect was not going to shoot the Pizza Person?  No, only one who knows this is Dead.  The Pizza Person used basic survival instincts to keep HIMSELF alive. He did not put himself in the position, the suspect did that, and he unfortunately paid the extreme price.

 

On a side Note, I wish for the best for the Pizza Person and his/her family.  Odds are the Pizza person is going to have nightmares for a very long time and may never get over it.  Taking another's life is no joke.

[techbeck]

Guy got what he deserved.

[c.grz]

Yeah, good on him for shooting someone who hadn't shot at him. Cos he couldn't just give them the money, the insurance company would've paid his employers, he would've got some kind of compensation, they would have found the suspects eventually and no-one would be dead.

 

Are you 100% sure of that? Myself as the victim; I'm not going to let the criminal make that decision.

[+Warwagon MVC]

You know someones mind is set against guns when, when a story comes out about how a person used a gun to save their own life and still the gun haters nip pick the story

 

"The stray shots could have easily killed more people." But they didn't

"Yeah, good on him for shooting someone who hadn't shot at him." Maybe he would have, maybe he wouldn't have, I don't want to wait around and find out which.

 

I'm not trying to shock anyone with this next comment.

 

But I personally think you forfeit the right to live the moment you try to rob someone.

[jmc15john]

Always love it when the good guys win.  One of my friends, ex. pizza driver, got robbed at gunpoint once.

[techbeck]

Yeah, good on him for shooting someone who hadn't shot at him. Cos he couldn't just give them the money, the insurance company would've paid his employers, he would've got some kind of compensation, they would have found the suspects eventually and no-one would be dead.

 

Wonder how many people are dead with that kind of thinking. Been many cases where the victims cooperated and ended up dead anyway.

[Buttus]

Yeah, good on him for shooting someone who hadn't shot at him. Cos he couldn't just give them the money, the insurance company would've paid his employers, he would've got some kind of compensation, they would have found the suspects eventually and no-one would be dead.

 

i see you've never been in Broward county here in Florida....   it never works like that here

[Dadwen]

But I personally think you forfeit the right to live the moment you try to rob someone.

May sound kinda cold but i agree with that statement.

[Lamp0]

But I personally think you forfeit the right to live the moment you try to rob someone.

 

Even if the thief is a gentleman?

[AeonicVision]

You know someones mind is set against guns when, when a story comes out about how a person used a gun to save their own life and still the gun haters nip pick the story

 

"The stray shots could have easily killed more people." But they didn't

"Yeah, good on him for shooting someone who hadn't shot at him." Maybe he would have, maybe he wouldn't have, I don't want to wait around and find out which.

 

I'm not trying to shock anyone with this next comment.

 

But I personally think you forfeit the right to live the moment you try to rob someone.

This is why I support the MPAA and RIAA for executing anyone that pirates music /s

[chrisj1968]

Yeah, good on him for shooting someone who hadn't shot at him. Cos he couldn't just give them the money, the insurance company would've paid his employers, he would've got some kind of compensation, they would have found the suspects eventually and no-one would be dead.

 

This is the mentallity of what's wrong in the US and around the world. a disarmed citizenry NEVER propsered because criminals don't obey gun laws.

[Rippleman]

"The stray shots could have easily killed more people." But they didn't

 

When you assess a situation, are you suggesting you don't factor in all the possible variables? Sounds short sighted to me.

 

As more direct answer: would I have shot had it been me? Absolutely, but...very accurately.

because criminals don't obey gun laws.

 

tax evasion criminals also don't pay tax. What does this have to do with anything?

[Rippleman]

This is the mentallity of what's wrong in the US and around the world. a disarmed citizenry NEVER propsered

 

Do you get out of the US anytime? You always sound like you know nothing of the outside world beyond your borders.

[rr_dRock]

Yeah, good on him for shooting someone who hadn't shot at him. Cos he couldn't just give them the money, the insurance company would've paid his employers, he would've got some kind of compensation, they would have found the suspects eventually and no-one would be dead.

 

And how long do you think it would take to find those two males? They still haven't found the other one, but I doubt he's out robbing people right now, as opposed to him getting away with it, and thinking he could do it again, without fear.

 

 

You are crazy if you think anyone has ever said this.

 

 

 

 

The stray shots could have easily killed more people. It is NOT known whether the suspects also had guns, simply says "armed". It was an extremely lucky shooting/event in anycase.

 

Perhaps I am, well, not perhaps. But the grass isn't any greener on the other side.

They shouldn't have brought knives to a gun fight then. Or hatchets, as was the case here in Canada, where self defense legislation is woefully inept at protecting citizens from assailants, and the pizza delivery guy was murdered in cold blood, for $40 and a couple pizzas.  And unless the pizza guy misses (which I'm assuming at that close of a range is almost nil), and is using some excessive type of firearm/ammunition, doubtful. And even then, you're assuming the person with a CCW, is a complete buffoon.

Every shooting is lucky by that definition.

 

 

If the armed thief had instead shot & killed the armed pizza man the guns would still have "saved a life". Some how I don't think you would have pointed that out had that been the scenario.

 

No, they would have caused the loss of a life, and it would have been more fodder for the people who argue against the ability to defend ones self in a meaningful manner. When you invade someones space, forcefully, and with intent to cause harm or death, you forfeit your right to live.

[Gerowen]

It's California, one of the most backwards, pacifist states in the union, he'll be lucky if they don't charge him, the victim, with murder for not allowing himself to be robbed.  When you try to rob somebody, to take something that's not yours, especially while threatening the use of deadly force, you forfeit your right to life.  I'd rather live next to a convicted serial killer than a thief, they're almost the lowest form of scum on earth.

[Sadelwo]

When a thief murders an innocent hard working person everyone is up in arms. When an innocent hard working person defends themselves and a criminal ends up dead, then comes the theories on how the one who was being robbed could have let the victims get away. Criminals without remorse and usually full of intoxicated substances seem to be given more human rights in thought than the hard working law abiding victim.  Its disappointing that in todays world we have all these "but he could have..." discussions not because there is concern about the situation, but because someone wants to flaunt their intellectual prowess and seem more compassionate than others. Actually this trying to find fault with the potential victim of a crime doesn't come off as a benevolent intellectual, but more being a disconnected from reality armchair know it all. This isn't a put down on discussions about these situations, I just personally feel that over the past few years we've distanced our selves from the plight and suffering of victims and their families and try to over sympathize with those doing the hurt when they couldn't care less about the morality or laws you wish to judge them by. We should be  objective yes, but we tend to lean too far to the other side of the spectrum at times and such attitudes only embolden criminals warped sense of power over others.

[Lamp0]

No, they would have caused the loss of a life

 

But the criminal that died would have saved his life too.

[rr_dRock]

But the criminal that died would have saved his life too.

 

I don't consider that a life saved. What is saved, in having a criminal run free? It's obviously not the general public.