Armed furniture store owner fights back would-be robber in Indianapolis

[Grand Torino]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/08/19/armed-furniture-store-owner-fights-back-would-be-robber-in-indianapolis.html

An Indiana furniture store owner turned the tables on a would-be armed robber last month, pulling out his own firearm and forcing the suspect to bolt. 

According to the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department, the suspect walked into the store and spoke to owner Doyle Stinson on the morning of July 5. Police said the suspect pulled out a gun and demanded money. 

Stinson said he gave the suspect $10 from his wallet, but the man told him: "I know you've got more money than that because this is a business." The suspect then marched Stinson to the owner's office and the back of the store. 

 

"Once he gets me back to the back room, that was a mistake," Stinson told Fox 59. "I go back here, I hit my silent alarm emergency button."

Stinson told the station that he knew the would-be robber's gun wasn't loaded. When the pair got to his office, the store owner grabbed his own .40-caliber weapon. 

The suspect fled the store. Stinson took aim, but didn't fire because he saw a boy in front of the store and was concerned he would be hit by a stray bullet. 

Read more.

[DaveTN]

Good for him.

Quote

I knew when he pulled the hammer back on the automatic weapon there wasn’t a bullet in the chamber. I know the sound.

Interesting.

 

[m16ty]

Wonder how he knew the gun wasn’t loaded? It’s pretty easy to tell if a revolver has missing rounds in the cylinder, but you can’t be sure there isn’t one in the chamber. Other guns like a Glock, you can tell, if you are the one holding it, but I’m not sure you could tell if it was being pointed at you.

Making the statement “I knew the gun wasn’t loaded”, could also get you charged with murder, if he had killed the guy.

[DWARREN123]

I am not sure he was correct!

[Ray Z]

He saved Indiana a lot of money, and it could have been more if he shot the SOB.

[walthermitty]

The suspect fled.  Store owner would definitely be charged for shooting the perp in the back.

Edited August 21, 2018 by walthermitty

[chances R]

1 hour ago, walthermitty said:

The suspect fled.  Store owner would definitely be charged for shooting the perp in the back.

Depends, suspect had a gun.  If he was pointing back behind him as he was running, still a threat and still puts one in jeopardy. 

[DaveTN]

31 minutes ago, chances R said:

Depends, suspect had a gun.  If he was pointing back behind him as he was running, still a threat and still puts one in jeopardy. 

Yep. But I hesitated in saying that before because a cop could have done it and been justified; a citizens always runs the risk of being charged. (Hence my support of fleeing forcible felons laws of the past) that and the fact that he said he knew the gun wasn’t loaded. (I’m still trying to figure out what kind of semi-auto makes a different sound when there is no round in the chamber and you pull the hammer back.)

[chances R]

Agree with the confusion regarding the statement.  Just another good reason to let your attorney do the talking beyond a few vital details

[walthermitty]

On ‎8‎/‎21‎/‎2018 at 1:44 PM, DaveTN said:

Yep. But I hesitated in saying that before because a cop could have done it and been justified; a citizens always runs the risk of being charged. (Hence my support of fleeing forcible felons laws of the past) that and the fact that he said he knew the gun wasn’t loaded. (I’m still trying to figure out what kind of semi-auto makes a different sound when there is no round in the chamber and you pull the hammer back.)

There is an uproar from the local black community over a recent shooting.  A newish cop shot a guy that was running away from a car.  The runner, however, had just been involved in a shooting (from that car.)  The cop had to assume that he was still armed, and a danger to him or the community (I thought.)  Is this uproar another black "selective enforcement" ploy, or was the shooting justified, as you intimate above?  

 

[DaveTN]

12 minutes ago, walthermitty said:

There is an uproar from the local black community over a recent shooting.  A newish cop shot a guy that was running away from a car.  The runner, however, had just been involved in a shooting (from that car.)  The cop had to assume that he was still armed, and a danger to him or the community (I thought.)  Is this uproar another black "selective enforcement" ploy, or was the shooting justified, as you intimate above?  

 

I don’t know which incident you are referring to, but you will always have uproar from some group. Last month Chicago PD quickly released a video showing Officers shooting a man that was clearly trying to pull a gun. Riots still erupted. You don’t need wrong doing for a riot; you just need people that want a new big screen TV.

[Omega]

11 minutes ago, walthermitty said:

There is an uproar from the local black community over a recent shooting.  A newish cop shot a guy that was running away from a car.  The runner, however, had just been involved in a shooting (from that car.)  The cop had to assume that he was still armed, and a danger to him or the community (I thought.)  Is this uproar another black "selective enforcement" ploy, or was the shooting justified, as you intimate above?  

 

I remember seeing this, and had my doubts when first presented with the video.  But what was not mentioned when they aired the video, is that the weapon was still in his hand when he was shot.  That puts a whole different spin on it for me.

[DaveTN]

12 minutes ago, Omega said:

I remember seeing this, and had my doubts when first presented with the video.  But what was not mentioned when they aired the video, is that the weapon was still in his hand when he was shot.  That puts a whole different spin on it for me.

Sure, if you have an armed assailant that is running, he’s an ongoing threat. If he doesn’t follow orders to stop; he’ll probably be shot.  Cops do it all the time. I wouldn’t try it as a private citizen.

[docachna]

5 hours ago, Omega said:

I remember seeing this, and had my doubts when first presented with the video.  But what was not mentioned when they aired the video, is that the weapon was still in his hand when he was shot.  That puts a whole different spin on it for me.

That was in Metro Nashville. I haven't followed it closely enough to confirm that he connected that BG with a previous shooting incident; I do believe so, however. What I do know is they scared up the car, the guy bailed, he was running down a sidewalk and the officer shot him from about 30 ft. behind. Pictures at the time showed a semi-auto they say they found at the scene. The video shows him running with a dark object in his hand. I'm not involved in the investigation, so I don't know what they know, but if he was reasonable at the time in believing the guy 1) had shot, and 2) had the gun, it was therefore probably reasonable to believe 3) he would use it again, and he was probably justified in the shoot. Honestly, though, the video is sort of bad to look at. I'm really not sure how this one will turn out. But bad to look at may or may not turn out to be a use of force justified under the law.

Of course, the sheeple bleating for "control of the POH-lice" are screaming their lungs out. One rhymin' rev actually was on the news last night, saying Metro Nashville PD should adopt a "NO DEADLY FORCE" policy.

I rewound it just to make sure I didn't hear wrong. I didn't.

You gotta wonder if he sat in his house laughing, saying, "Man, you believe they actually put that **it on TV ????".