Customer kills gunman during Jacksonville robbery attempt

[jnelsoninjax]

A 57-year-old Jacksonville grandfather stopped off on his way home from work Monday night to fill a grocery list his wife left for him that morning.

But after entering the Dollar General at 1921 Dunn Ave., he was thrust into an armed robbery that ended with him firing his weapon and one of the two robbers lying dead on the floor.

Two unidentified men entered the store about 9:20 p.m., both with handguns, said Lt. Rob Schoonover of the Jacksonville Sheriff?s Office.

?One of them had the clerk and one of them was at the front cash register,? Schoonover said.

The manager then alerted the customer to the situation.

?The customer, who had a concealed firearms permit and a firearm, fired at the suspect, striking him apparently two times, killing him,? Schoonover said.

The other robber, wearing a blue bandana and gloves, ran out the front and fled eastbound on Dunn Avenue in a small sport-utility vehicle.

Soon after the incident, police allowed the customer to call and reassure his family.

?We just get a phone call saying, ?I?m OK, but something happened,?? said the man?s son. ?It just sucks that we have to work late and have to carry a gun.?

The man, who the Times-Union is not identifying because the other robber has not been caught, knew well how to use his gun, according to his family.

?He?s always been a marksman,? his wife said. ?He shoots in competitions, but this is the first time he?s ever killed anyone and I don?t know how he?ll handle that.?

The store was equipped with video surveillance and the man was being taken in for questioning, but he?s not being charged, Schoonover said.

?The citizen did not get shot, none of the employees were hurt, this worked out good tonight,? Schoonover said.

Source

[cork1958]

Right on, Grandpa!! Only a bummer he didn't get the other SOB!!

[The Laughing Man]

?He?s always been a marksman,? his wife said. ?He shoots in competitions, but this is the first time he?s ever killed anyone and I don?t know how he?ll handle that.?

So why did he fire 2 shots?, If he is a so called marksman was the arm/leg too difficult for this marksman to go after? (yes i know moving targets etc)

[rhianntp]

score !

[Jim K Global Moderator]

?He?s always been a marksman,? his wife said. ?He shoots in competitions, but this is the first time he?s ever killed anyone and I don?t know how he?ll handle that.?

So why did he fire 2 shots?, If he is a so called marksman was the arm/leg too difficult for this marksman to go after? (yes i know moving targets etc)

Better question. Why didn't he get the other thug? Answer: We weren't there. :)

[Singh400]

?He?s always been a marksman,? his wife said. ?He shoots in competitions, but this is the first time he?s ever killed anyone and I don?t know how he?ll handle that.?

So why did he fire 2 shots?, If he is a so called marksman was the arm/leg too difficult for this marksman to go after? (yes i know moving targets etc)

Double tap?

[ahhell]

So why did he fire 2 shots?, If he is a so called marksman was the arm/leg too difficult for this marksman to go after? (yes i know moving targets etc)

This isn't a movie for ****sakes!!!! Do you have any idea how hard it would be to hit someone in the arm/leg on purpose with a pistol? Obviously not. :|

[Shane Nokes]

?He?s always been a marksman,? his wife said. ?He shoots in competitions, but this is the first time he?s ever killed anyone and I don?t know how he?ll handle that.?

So why did he fire 2 shots?, If he is a so called marksman was the arm/leg too difficult for this marksman to go after? (yes i know moving targets etc)

Because you ALWAYS aim for center mass and ALWAYS fire at least 2 rounds in order to take down a threat.

I assume you don't know a lot about how to handle firearms, or would that be a mistaken assumption?

Double tap?

Bingo!

This isn't a movie for ****sakes!!!! Do you have any idea how hard it would be to hit someone in the arm/leg on purpose with a pistol? Obviously not. :|

Not only that, but the chance of a ricochet if he misses could actually lead to someone else being harmed.

[Descartes]

?He?s always been a marksman,? his wife said. ?He shoots in competitions, but this is the first time he?s ever killed anyone and I don?t know how he?ll handle that.?

So why did he fire 2 shots?, If he is a so called marksman was the arm/leg too difficult for this marksman to go after? (yes i know moving targets etc)

I think you just answered that yourself...

[Brandon]

Double tap?

I love zombie land

[SupportGeek]

Good thing Florida at least has sensible carry laws.

Another scumbag chlorinated out of the gene-pool

[WinMunkee]

?He?s always been a marksman,? his wife said. ?He shoots in competitions, but this is the first time he?s ever killed anyone and I don?t know how he?ll handle that.?

So why did he fire 2 shots?, If he is a so called marksman was the arm/leg too difficult for this marksman to go after? (yes i know moving targets etc)

The robbers had firearms. So it would have been semi-retarded and Darwin award winning to only shoot them in the arm/leg. If you were to do that, the second gunman would have killed you. Instead, he killed one, and that scared the **** out of the other.

[ANON86364]

Good thing Florida at least has sensible carry laws.

Another scumbag chlorinated out of the gene-pool

Indeed! I really want to get myself trained and eventually a permit.

[theyarecomingforyou]

I don't see why this is considered a positive outcome by many here. Rather than apprehending the would-be robber and trying him in a court of law he was shot dead. Taking somebody's life is not an appropriate punishment for robbery. From what I can tell from the article the customer wasn't in any direct danger and had he done nothing he would have escaped without injury.

This isn't justice. This is vigilantism. The US is reverting to the Wild West. How long will it be until disputes are settled by duels in the middle of the street?

[AJerman]

I don't see why this is considered a positive outcome by many here. Rather than apprehending the would-be robber and trying him in a court of law he was shot dead. Taking somebody's life is not an appropriate punishment for robbery. From what I can tell from the article the customer wasn't in any direct danger and had he done nothing he would have escaped without injury.

This isn't justice. This is vigilantism. The US is reverting to the Wild West. How long will it be until disputes are settled by duels in the middle of the street?

Reverting to the wild west? This has been the gun laws forever, and this is how the world works. If you decide to rob someone at gun point, well there's a possibility you're going to get yourself shot first. If they were robbing someone without a weapon, your comments would have some merit, when they have guns as well, they have none. Nothing has changed from how it's ever been, maybe you're just waking up to the world around you.

Simple solution, don't rob someone at gun point and you won't get shot. When you decide to threaten someone else's life, you put your own at risk.

[necroxd]

I don't see why this is considered a positive outcome by many here. Rather than apprehending the would-be robber and trying him in a court of law he was shot dead. Taking somebody's life is not an appropriate punishment for robbery. From what I can tell from the article the customer wasn't in any direct danger and had he done nothing he would have escaped without injury.

This isn't justice. This is vigilantism. The US is reverting to the Wild West. How long will it be until disputes are settled by duels in the middle of the street?

The first thing they tell you is don't draw your gun unless your going to shoot. Second is alert your presence by shooting. If you alert you presence by saying put your hands up the common response is turn and shoot. People don't want to go to jail for armed robbery. Hell they are commiting armed robbery that means they are dangerous. You can find so many cases of people trying to intervene and getting shot. People don't have enough reaction time.

This isn't a movie for ****sakes!!!! Do you have any idea how hard it would be to hit someone in the arm/leg on purpose with a pistol? Obviously not. :|

https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1101623-woman-aims-for-skunk-shoots-husband/

[JustGeorge]

I don't see why this is considered a positive outcome by many here. Rather than apprehending the would-be robber and trying him in a court of law he was shot dead. Taking somebody's life is not an appropriate punishment for robbery. From what I can tell from the article the customer wasn't in any direct danger and had he done nothing he would have escaped without injury.

This isn't justice. This is vigilantism. The US is reverting to the Wild West. How long will it be until disputes are settled by duels in the middle of the street?

You don't know the intent of the robbers. They may have decided to prone everyone out on the floor and shoot each customer or they may have simply run out. In a situation like this, you have to assume that your life is in danger and act accordingly. I suppose it would've been ok with you if they killed a few innocent people as long as they were captured/tried for their crimes?

[bane7378]

I don't see why this is considered a positive outcome by many here. Rather than apprehending the would-be robber and trying him in a court of law he was shot dead. Taking somebody's life is not an appropriate punishment for robbery. From what I can tell from the article the customer wasn't in any direct danger and had he done nothing he would have escaped without injury.

This isn't justice. This is vigilantism. The US is reverting to the Wild West. How long will it be until disputes are settled by duels in the middle of the street?

So by your logic the best action to take would have been wait and see if the robbers decided to kill someone? Only then do you "retaliate"? No, I don't think that is a good solution. Better that the robbers be shot, even if it did result in the death of the person doing wrong rather than wait to find out the true intentions. I understand where you are coming from with regard to preserving life but if I was one of the people the robber's gun was being pointed at I would certainly want someone else to deal with the gun wielding robber rather than wait and see what the robber actually did to me. In my opinion, the citizen did what was right.

[former1]

I haven't posted on Neowin in ages - but topics like this annoy me. I am a full supporter for the rights to own firearms, but not so for 'carrying them concealed' in everyday life. That's just looking for a reason to use it.

What really annoys me though is statements like this:

So by your logic the best action to take would have been wait and see if the robbers decided to kill someone? Only then do you "retaliate"?

When your army and those of other nations are in Afghanistan under a strict policy of do not fire, unless fired upon. Then why does a civilian population feel they have a right to have a looser ROE than their countries military. A member of the army may only use their weapon outside ROE if they reasonably believe that there is risk to their life or others around them. Someone holding a gun and pointing it another isn't a direct risk to life, even if during a robbery.

[SupportGeek]

I don't see why this is considered a positive outcome by many here. Rather than apprehending the would-be robber and trying him in a court of law he was shot dead. Taking somebody's life is not an appropriate punishment for robbery. From what I can tell from the article the customer wasn't in any direct danger and had he done nothing he would have escaped without injury.

This isn't justice. This is vigilantism. The US is reverting to the Wild West. How long will it be until disputes are settled by duels in the middle of the street?

Its very positive, it reinforces the truth that the only form of gun control that actually works and protects law abiding citizens is using 2 hands to control the aim and recoil of your gun.

While the customer was not in initial danger, because there were 2 armed criminals, and an imminent danger of great harm to the clerk and manager, it was the duty of the customer to stop that threat.

This is in fact backed up by law, so the customer was acting within the law when he shot the felon.

Your assertion that he was acting as a vigilante is nothing but hogwash.

Along with your bullcrap hyperbole of ending disputes in shootouts, this isnt a "dispute" it was an armed robbery, where there were innocents threatened with death.

Time and again you post on the side of the criminals "Oh he shouldnt have been shot dead, just apprehend him", or your repeated cries to disarm law abiding citizens in the face of armed and dangerous criminals who obviously will not disarm too.

I wonder about your ulterior motives because Its clear you are not on the side of the law abiding citizen.

Bottom line as far as the article is concerned, if you are not willing to risk your life to pursue a life of illegal crime and violence, don't perform these kinds of activities.

[Routerbad]

I don't see why this is considered a positive outcome by many here. Rather than apprehending the would-be robber and trying him in a court of law he was shot dead. Taking somebody's life is not an appropriate punishment for robbery. From what I can tell from the article the customer wasn't in any direct danger and had he done nothing he would have escaped without injury.

This isn't justice. This is vigilantism. The US is reverting to the Wild West. How long will it be until disputes are settled by duels in the middle of the street?

Armed. Robbery.

They presented a deadly threat, and the man was well within his rights to react to that threat with deadly force.

[Routerbad]

I haven't posted on Neowin in ages - but topics like this annoy me. I am a full supporter for the rights to own firearms, but not so for 'carrying them concealed' in everyday life. That's just looking for a reason to use it.

What really annoys me though is statements like this:

[/color]

When your army and those of other nations are in Afghanistan under a strict policy of do not fire, unless fired upon. Then why does a civilian population feel they have a right to have a looser ROE than their countries military. A member of the army may only use their weapon outside ROE if they reasonably believe that there is risk to their life or others around them. Someone holding a gun and pointing it another isn't a direct risk to life, even if during a robbery.

Wow, you obviously understand nothing about ROE. Our ROE was very simple, if you see a weapon and feel that either you or your squadmates are in danger, take out the threat. You don't have to wait for them to fire. If there are no weapons in plain view, they are to wait until a threat is presented.

Someone pointing a gun in the commission of a felony is a risk to life. No one should be expected to wait for someone to fire at them before it's okay to protect themselves.

[KSib]

Someone holding a gun and pointing it another isn't a direct risk to life, even if during a robbery.

When you typed that, did it sound like it made sense? Because it doesn't.

Everyone has a right to defend themselves given a clear and present threat. Leave it to some of you guys/girls to try and spin this somehow.

[bane7378]

Someone holding a gun and pointing it another isn't a direct risk to life, even if during a robbery.

Someone holding a gun and pointing it at another individual is absolutely a direct risk to life, regardless of the situation. How can you honestly say it isn't? What further action needs to be taken in your mind to present a direct risk to life? I honestly don't understand how someone can think like that. The only other step that needs to be taken after aiming at someone is to shoot to actually take away that persons life.

The rest of your example about military actions is a bit silly. ROE as you are representing them are there to keep people from violating basic human rights. The idea of don't fire unless fired upon is to avoid the accidental escalation of a situation during war-time. However even you go on to say "A member of the army may only use their weapon outside ROE if they reasonably believe that there is risk to their life or others around them." Once again, I don't see how someone pointing a gun at an unarmed civilian can't be considered a risk to that persons life. I'm blown away at the lack of logic here.

[necroxd]

Someone holding a gun and pointing it at another individual is absolutely a direct risk to life, regardless of the situation. How can you honestly say it isn't? What further action needs to be taken in your mind to present a direct risk to life? I honestly don't understand how someone can think like that. The only other step that needs to be taken after aiming at someone is to shoot to actually take away that persons life.

The rest of your example about military actions is a bit silly. ROE as you are representing them are there to keep people from violating basic human rights. The idea of don't fire unless fired upon is to avoid the accidental escalation of a situation during war-time. However even you go on to say "A member of the army may only use their weapon outside ROE if they reasonably believe that there is risk to their life or others around them." Once again, I don't see how someone pointing a gun at an unarmed civilian can't be considered a risk to that persons life. I'm blown away at the lack of logic here.

I aswell. I just don't understand how you belive there is no risk to life. It's a gun! The purpose of a gun is to simply cease life. There is no other purpose. Once you draw a gun on a person you show you have no regards for their personal safety and life. Wehn you do that that makes you a threat and a liability.