71 year old foils internet cafe armed robbery

[Power5]

This guy looked very controlled and precise in his actions. I love how the armed robber with a gun, just took off without even trying to fight back. Old dude has faster reflexes than me. He spotted the threat and was already into action before I could even look for what I would have been doing.

http://www.ocala.com/article/2012071...WS01?p=1&tc=pg

Both bad guys were hit and wounded but not life threatening (only a 380 ). Both in jail on 11k and 31k bond which is ridiculous.

[Elbows]

This has made a lot of headlines, unfortunately the guy made a number of mistakes - which I'm hoping don't lead to charges made against him. While, in my perfect world, this would be fine...in reality, there are a lot of legal mistakes here.

Good for the guy taking action though.

[NightTrain EX]

This has made a lot of headlines, unfortunately the guy made a number of mistakes - which I'm hoping don't lead to charges made against him. While, in my perfect world, this would be fine...in reality, there are a lot of legal mistakes here.

Good for the guy taking action though.

Can you go into some more detail? I want to make sure I don't make the same mistakes.

[Elbows]

The real mistakes are legal issues...and ones that I disagree with, but the law is the law.

1) Once you engage someone, you never EVER chase them (unless, I suppose, they snatch up your child or something which forces you to pursue etc.)

2) Now if they started shooting back, and were doing a retreating gunfight...perhaps you could legally pursue them, at that point you're protecting other people.

3) Never EVER shoot someone who's sprawled out on the ground, UNLESS they have a gun and are aiming/shooting at you or someone else.

The main issue here is the same one which ends up with a lot of home owners getting in trouble. You get amped up, and next thing you know, you're chasing a home invader through your lawn, shooting him in the back. Remember, only when threatened with imminent serious bodily harm or death may you use a fire arm in self defense. Once that threat diminishes (guy drops gun, turns around and runs, etc.) you MUST stop shooting.

Some people chase home invaders out of the house, and into their car, and they end up in the street emptying their Glock into the car as its speeding away etc. This is exactly how you get sued/arrested/charged.

Unfortunately when the shooting starts, you immediately get amped, and often lose sight of what you can or cannot legally do. I really hope none of this comes back to bite this guy.

[GreenandChrome]

those boys weren't willing to throw down. a handgun and a bat... 19 y.o.'s... i wonder if the gun was an airsoft gun?

and where's the pic of Eastwood at? "Get out of my bingo hall!"

[VeeDubbinJetta91]

The real mistakes are legal issues...and ones that I disagree with, but the law is the law.

1) Once you engage someone, you never EVER chase them (unless, I suppose, they snatch up your child or something which forces you to pursue etc.)

2) Now if they started shooting back, and were doing a retreating gunfight...perhaps you could legally pursue them, at that point you're protecting other people.

3) Never EVER shoot someone who's sprawled out on the ground, UNLESS they have a gun and are aiming/shooting at you or someone else.

The main issue here is the same one which ends up with a lot of home owners getting in trouble. You get amped up, and next thing you know, you're chasing a home invader through your lawn, shooting him in the back. Remember, only when threatened with imminent serious bodily harm or death may you use a fire arm in self defense. Once that threat diminishes (guy drops gun, turns around and runs, etc.) you MUST stop shooting.

Some people chase home invaders out of the house, and into their car, and they end up in the street emptying their Glock into the car as its speeding away etc. This is exactly how you get sued/arrested/charged.

Unfortunately when the shooting starts, you immediately get amped, and often lose sight of what you can or cannot legally do. I really hope none of this comes back to bite this guy.

QFT...Even though that video brings a smile to my face when i watch it he definitely made some mistakes...thankfully ive never been in such a situation so i would hope id remember all the "laws" if i were put in the situation...im glad there are people out there like this guy

[Elbows]

Trust me, in my perfect world, this would have been greeted with "fantastic job, here's a bonus check and a medal!". The video says it all. Precisely what should have happened, happened.

Sadly...we don't live in that world.

[Subie J]

Love the lady walking over to him then plugging her ears.

I can just hear her...."oh this is very not good."

[NightTrain EX]

The real mistakes are legal issues...and ones that I disagree with, but the law is the law.

1) Once you engage someone, you never EVER chase them (unless, I suppose, they snatch up your child or something which forces you to pursue etc.)

2) Now if they started shooting back, and were doing a retreating gunfight...perhaps you could legally pursue them, at that point you're protecting other people.

3) Never EVER shoot someone who's sprawled out on the ground, UNLESS they have a gun and are aiming/shooting at you or someone else.

The main issue here is the same one which ends up with a lot of home owners getting in trouble. You get amped up, and next thing you know, you're chasing a home invader through your lawn, shooting him in the back. Remember, only when threatened with imminent serious bodily harm or death may you use a fire arm in self defense. Once that threat diminishes (guy drops gun, turns around and runs, etc.) you MUST stop shooting.

Some people chase home invaders out of the house, and into their car, and they end up in the street emptying their Glock into the car as its speeding away etc. This is exactly how you get sued/arrested/charged.

Unfortunately when the shooting starts, you immediately get amped, and often lose sight of what you can or cannot legally do. I really hope none of this comes back to bite this guy.

I sure do hope he ends up ok.

[DonL]

Trust me, in my perfect world, this would have been greeted with "fantastic job, here's a bonus check and a medal!". The video says it all. Precisely what should have happened, happened.

Sadly...we don't live in that world.

Amen. This is an election year, and all it takes is some gung-ho prosecutor trying to make a name for themselves with a "tough on crime" stance to try to turn things around against Williams. Especially in Florida, where Zimmerman put the Stand Your Ground law in a quagmire. Some know-it-all would proclaim that without the gun pointed at Williams, he was not under a direct threat to his own personal safety and wasn't legally justified in shooting. Forget the safety of the other patrons, who give's a rat's ass about them when you're trying to score political points.

As far as I'm concerned, if I were the investigator, after seeing the video and the aggressive entry of the punks, I'd shake Williams' hand for a job well done. Based on the linked article, it doesn't look like charges will be filed, and they damn well shouldn't.

[Power5]

A gun website said that the gun was a rusted up antique or something. That is why even when Williams approached the BG and the BG already had his gun aimed in Williams' direction he did not fire. Also reported that the BG was upset that Williams fired at him while he was on the ground. His reason was that he was no longer looking to hurt Williams. I am guessing his Public defender told him to say this BS.

Get a good lawyer. Any lawyer will probably be better than the punks can afford. The kids had a gun and bat, until they are out of the location they still pose a very deadly threat. Looking at the video we know they were running for the door to leave. During the engagement William's had no idea if they were running for cover to return fire or what they were going to do. As stated, once they leave the premisses you need to stop firing. I contend that while they are still armed and in the same location as the victims they still pose a deadly threat. Hence kill them before they can leave or kill you. I would say only his last shot was questionable.

He does need to take more trips to the range. No idea how his first shot did not fatally wound the kid. That was no more than 5' between his barrel and the BG. Other than that, I think he probably got more hits on target than I would have.


Add this incident to the Dark Night Rises shooting and I really am starting to want my CCW.

[Elbows]

I contend that while they are still armed and in the same location as the victims they still pose a deadly threat. Hence kill them before they can leave or kill you. I would say only his last shot was questionable.

This is the problem. While a normal, sane person would agree with you...the law is what the law is. You can contend all day, but it doesn't change the issues.

I saw this happen numerous times in the LEO community (thankfully not to me or my close friends). Guys who were fired or even charged for shooting at a vehicle driving at them...and then firing one or two shots as it passed them. It was deemed that a vehicle next to you, or past you is no longer a threat. Guys would get canned for stuff like that.

PS: Being a .380, chances are the old guy was using ball ammunition. My father will be carrying his .380 auto Beretta, so I'll be getting him some decent defensive ammo. If you're going to run something like a .380 --- run it with some good defensive ammunition, and get several hits.

[Power5]

That's where a good lawyer comes in. My lawyers word that I was still feeling threatened vs the criminals, who came into the location I was with weapons, stating that they were no long a threat.

As for LEO shooting at cars, they should know from all the action movie documentaries to shoot at the tires. The car will immediately lose control and hit a fire hydrant or tree, or go off a cliff.

[Elbows]

That's where a good lawyer comes in. My lawyers word that I was still feeling threatened vs the criminals, who came into the location I was with weapons, stating that they were no long a threat.

As for LEO shooting at cars, they should know from all the action movie documentaries to shoot at the tires. The car will immediately lose control and hit a fire hydrant or tree, or go off a cliff.

Good point, or at the very least - the gas tank. I agree with you, a good lawyer will help, but you're starting off on the wrong foot if you are "legally" in the wrong. Needless to say I have some very specific advice I give to close friends and family members. The type I will not dole out on the internet.

[DonL]

As for LEO shooting at cars, they should know from all the action movie documentaries to shoot at the tires. The car will immediately lose control and hit a fire hydrant or tree, or go off a cliff.

Or flip over and explode in a huge fireball...

[Elbows]

I always shot for the gas tank...

[AutobahnTDI]

Looks like there was a patron standing right next to the perp when the old guy took the first shot. Pretty risky on his part.

[Power5]

Not sure what you can somehow see off screen but I did not SEE anyone next to the gunman. There was a person, that he motioned to move. That person went off screen so no idea where he was when the man shot. I guess you have a better camera angle than I do.

[gpelec]

Trust me, in my perfect world, this would have been greeted with "fantastic job haha. i not think so .