Walgreens Customer Shoots armed Robber & saves lives.

[Rizzo]

OMAHA, Neb. -- An armed robber was shot and killed in an Omaha business Monday night, police said. Investigators said a customer intervened and fired on the gunman.

The robbery took place at the Walgreen’s store at 61st Street and Northwest Radial Highway at 8:50 p.m.

Police said two masked individuals walked into the store. One of them was armed with a short shotgun. The gunman pointed the weapon at customers and at the clerk behind the counter.

A man who had a permit to carry a gun saw the robber point the weapon at the clerk and pulled out his handgun and shot the suspect multiple times, police said. The robber stumbled out of the store and collapsed. The wounded robber was taken to Creighton University Medical Center, where he later died.


Customer Shoots, Kills Would-Be Armed Robber

Customer Shoots, Kills Would-Be Armed Robber - Most Popular News Story - KETV Omaha

 

[wtfd661]

God guys 1 bad guys 0, hopefully they caught the other turd

 

[38special]

He was a vigilante cop-wannabe sitting around waiting for crime so he could use his gun and flex his muscle.

 

[SelfDefenseInstructor]

God guys 1 bad guys 0, hopefully they caught the other turd

I second that!

 

[Rizzo]

I would hate to have to take take the life of a criminal. But I would hate worse the guilt of having done nothing while a criminal takes an innocent persons life.

 

[E5RANGER375]

ALRIGHT!!!!! one down, several million to go. keep reloading

 

[femurphy77]

A co-worker of mine suggested that each time you have a legitimate intervention such as this one, the armed citizen should receive $100k tax free. Interesting concept. . . . .of course you would have to have some limitations like perhaps no more than 5/year. Any thoughts?

 

[Que]

I would hate to have to take take the life of a criminal. But I would hate worse the guilt of having done nothing while a criminal takes an innocent persons life.

My sentiments, exactly! This is the kind of story that needs to be on the news.

 

[EvilleDoug]

I am not weighing in until I see what Samot has to say.

Then, after my opinion has been passed along to me, I will make a better post, thank you for your patience.

Doug

PS - Yeah good guys!!

 

[Que]

If criminals thought the probability was high that they would encounter a store full of people with guns in the holsters and purses, then this kind of crime would cease to happen. How often have you heard of a gun shop being robbed?!

 

[Skroggster]

Thanks for the Castle Doctrine we can do this, and be a hero. But you better damn sure kill him if not the crook will sue you.

 

[shooter521]

But you better damn sure kill him if not the crook will sue you.

 

[E5RANGER375]

Thanks for the Castle Doctrine we can do this, and be a hero. But you better damn sure kill him if not the crook will sue you.

no problem, i dont aim for the legs. its goin through his skull first. then follow up shots center mast to make sure.

i also totaly agree with the post talking about a tax reward for killing a criminal engaged in deadly activity like a robbery.

 

[drgnrobo]

Criminals are so brazen nowadays that this type of citizen in action is what the criminal element needs to fear . If this type action wasnt taken these perps would be still out robbing stores & with a deadly weapon would eventually take some innocent persons life . I commend the individual involved for saving his county & state the cost of the trial not to mention the cost of prison life if any. I know that the citizen involved with the shooting will have to live with his decision that he took a another persons life but it was done for the right reasons ,to fend off a would be robber that was brandishing a deadly weapon intent on using it if he didnt get his way. Just my

 

[EvilleDoug]

Thanks for the Castle Doctrine we can do this, and be a hero. But you better damn sure kill him if not the crook will sue you.

Look, I understand you may have meant well, but the subject of Killing Someone is not the idea behind being protected from the BG. The idea is having the option to defend yourself if the situation arises. If an armed person has to fire his/her weapon in self defense then the death of the BG is a likely outcome, it should not be the "goal".

Saying you had better kill someone to avoid being sued does not help the case for being able to choose the option of carrying a firearm, it actually hurts it.

Please, think about what you are posting here, as there are plenty of anti gunners out there that can and would use what ever they can against us to disarm our option for safety.

Not my intention to hurt feelings or Pi** someone off, just trying to point out the better side of thinking before you post.

Doug

 

[jdhaines]

I'm not sure that is the "better side of thinking." The gun is a tool. The goal should be to make the person stop what they are doing using whatever means necessary. If that's lethal force, then so be it. If I could spit a piece of bubble gum at his head and guarantee he would drop his gun, sit down, and wait for the police, then I would carry Trident in a holster. It's not about the gun, it's about stopping the illegal and dangerous action.

 

[shooter521]

It's not about the gun, it's about stopping the illegal and dangerous action.

And I would suggest that it's about stopping the illegal and dangerous action, not necessarily about killing the guy.

I'm going to shoot to stop the threat. Whether or not the BG dies as a result is beside the point.

 

[Bounty Hunter]

I truly feel we should have the right to defend ourselves and our families, and I would die to keep that right.To have to be put in that situation where you would have to do so, would be a life altering experience(And not a good one).

I pray I would never be put in that situation and forced to make that decision. Even though justified, there are life long consiquences that go with that decision, I do not care how tuff you are.

That being said, I carry because I believe in that right and will live with that responsibility, and decision if it is forced upon me.

Pray it never is!

 

[Airborne33]

Need more men and women life this out in the streets. Maybe it's not "PC" to shoto and kill a criminal, but there is certainly one less on the streets because of this guy. Bonus, everyone who hears of this and thinks of commiting a robbery anytime soon, will have to think twice. Crime doesn't always pay.

Now reload and get back on the streets.

 

[Lars]

Thanks for the Castle Doctrine we can do this, and be a hero. But you better damn sure kill him if not the crook will sue you.

Snip from Indiana's "Castle Doctrine" Law

SECTION 1. IC 35-41-3-2 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2006]: Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; only and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.

Highlight is my emphasis. If a shoot is a "good shoot" defined shortly above the bold text, Indiana law protects the "shooter" from legal jeopardy, including civil lawsuit by family members of the person who was shot.

This does obviously require that the shooter "reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony"

Pretty cut and dry. There's no reason to ensure that the bad guy is killed. There's no reason to drag the person shot into your house.... What other typical pieces of "bad advice" are tossed around regarding what to do if you end up justifiably shooting someone in self defense?