IPSC Grandmaster exchanges gunfire with armed robbers

[ChevyGuy91]

Huh, what language are you speaking? do what - is that french?

I figured that was a joke, so I replied with a jokingly baffled response.

 

[TheWookie]

I figured that was a joke, so I replied with a jokingly baffled response.

Yeah, I'm just pulling your chain. I bet the guy missed because he didn't have a scope on his 5-shoota.

Chalk it up, to good initiative - bad judgement. His actions were noble, but stupid.

 

[TomH]

I'm all for people shooting robbers. Too bad he missed.

 

[TheWookie]

The more I think of it, the more I think this guy should get less business, not more from this.

First, he failed for doing a "No Impact No Idea" on five rounds he flung out there in a busy area. He said, he was just focused on shooting,,, obviously, he needs to get re-focused at the range....

He failed next for being a defensive pistol instructor with only a 5 shooter. Where was his primary? And, if that was -- he still decided to take on multiple attackers??

Finally, he failed because he basically attacked these thugs with only a 5 shooter.

I love how at the end of the video, he said, he goes inside for another pistol, but doesn't say anything to his employee's -- yeah cause they probably didn't hear the gunfire outside.

 

[flintoid]

He won't lose business. People don't think that critically after the "wow" moment after hearing a cowboys vs. indians story like that.

I think he did something awesome. But it wasn't a smart move.

 

[Terminator03]

All I keep thinking is that it is a good thing he was in FL, and not in MA pulling a stunt like that! I wonder if he will be deemed "unsuitable to carry" down there now?

 

[cekim]

I totally agree..We need more useful idiots like this grandmaster flash tool.

Although one bad shot or a ricochet and he would be re-thinking what he did and whether or not it was worth it to fire at people that were no direct threat to him or his family and friends.If one of his superhero instructor grandmaster shots happened to hit an innocent bystander,everybody would be calling him an idiot.

Wait? I thought once you took the red pill you couldn't go back?

As always there's a fine line between bravery and stupidity, but some of the feces I am seeing shoveled in this thread comes right out of the Brady playbook...

Take a step back, breath it in... Pay careful attention to the aroma...

 

[vellnueve]

In Florida it's only legal to shoot someone to prevent a "forcible felony." The only time that the average citizen can shoot someone who is fleeing is when an unlawful intruder is inside the home or vehicle. In a dynamic situation where the attacker has their back turned while still in the fight it's different, but based on this guys statements, the forcible felony was over and they were simply fleeing the scene.

I still doubt that he'll see any negative legal action, because non-criminals get the benefit of the doubt down here if they crossed a few lines but had things right in general. The Norman Borden shooting is the most recent questionable incident I've heard of in this state where the citizen was even charged (though he wasn't convicted).

I agree on all points. I was speaking from more of a morality point of view.

I find something intrinsically wrong with the idea that someone committing a crime that can shatter someone's life (or, for that matter, kill someone) can suddenly be safe from retribution simply by turning their back and running.

 

[cekim]

I agree on all points. I was speaking from more of a morality point of view.

No matter what you believe, the "morality" is complicated here...

The morality of protecting society from what these guys will do in the future vs the morality of the people at risk from stray bullets. Neither are trivial matters, nor one easily dismissed by the other.

 

[TWtommers]

Not enough information in here to really critique this guy. Never having been in a shoot out with four armed assailants I think I'll steer clear of critiquing his shooting skills.
I do have to say I'm a little unclear as to why he rammed the car. According to what I'm reading he was in his truck on the way to 7-11. He saw guys in ski masks in a Taurus speeding and that is why he rammed them? Maybe I'm missing something but based on that I think he should have more info before he rammed the car. Was he tipped off somehow?

 

[Terminator03]

Not enough information in here to really critique this guy. Never having been in a shoot out with four armed assailants I think I'll steer clear of critiquing his shooting skills.
I do have to say I'm a little unclear as to why he rammed the car. According to what I'm reading he was in his truck on the way to 7-11. He saw guys in ski masks in a Taurus speeding and that is why he rammed them? Maybe I'm missing something but based on that I think he should have more info before he rammed the car. Was he tipped off somehow?

True, and now I wonder if his insurance will find him at fault for the accident (which he obviously is). As much as we would all like to be a hero, and chase down the bad guys, I think he was completely wrong to do what he did, since at that point he was going by suspicion only that a crime had been committed, and was not in any danger from the "suspects" at all.

 

[01SVTvert]

I agree on all points. I was speaking from more of a morality point of view.

I find something intrinsically wrong with the idea that someone committing a crime that can shatter someone's life (or, for that matter, kill someone) can suddenly be safe from retribution simply by turning their back and running.

This

 

[Jose]

I wonder if he will be deemed "unsuitable to carry" down there now?

Stop applying ma**h*** thinking to places other than MA.

The "suitability" bullshit only exists in your state and a few other dumps like California.

In Florida, the state's Department of Licensing (not his local PD) can only revoke his license to carry if he runs afoul of one or more of the legislatively enumerated reasons to become prohibited from carrying.

There is ZERO discretion allowed.

 

[Bill Nance]

Going out of your way to try to apprehend four armed fleeing people, in a car, (fleeing being the operative. They weren't at that point a threat to anyone) with only a j-frame snubby isn't exactly what I'd call good tactical judgment. A pocket pistol is either a holdout piece or useful for VERY short-range defensive fights.

This guy seems to have been all fired up to go play cop without the badge or the equipment. He's probably very lucky he didn't get shot.

It's certainly not morally wrong, but it wasn't smart.

 

[FalArAk]

Not enough information in here to really critique this guy. Never having been in a shoot out with four armed assailants I think I'll steer clear of critiquing his shooting skills.

So what you are essentially saying here is we should be looking forward to a computer generated re-enactment presentation complete with commentary by the most famous NES instructor so he can show us how it REALLY should have been handled ?

 

[TWtommers]

So what you are essentially saying here is we should be looking forward to a computer generated re-enactment presentation complete with commentary by the most famous NES instructor so he can show us how it REALLY should have been handled ?

It's fun to speculate on this crap most of the time but there's so little detail on this one it's not even worth starting!

 

[wacky_doug]

Too commando for me. If he wants to be a cop, he should go to the police academy. If there were obvious lives at stake...then it would make more sense.

"Grandmaster" made me laugh. Guess I'm not up on IPSC terminology. The only grandmaster, I know is Grandmaster Flash.

 

[Gammon]

It's OK for someone to commit a crime as long as they turn tail and run away?

It is never "OK" for someone to commit a crime. I do believe that once the felons have fled and no lives are in jeopardy it is best to leave the matter to the police.

 

[GSG]

I wonder if he will be deemed "unsuitable to carry" down there now?

As Jose said, there's no such thing as "suitability" in FL. Even if you got convicted for a DUI or other crime that would make you lose the CWFL, they have to re-issue the license in 3 years, and you can still keep a loaded gun "securely encased" (i.e. glove compartment, center console) in the car without a license as long as you're not federally prohibited. Your gun ownership also has nothing to do with that license.

I do have to say I'm a little unclear as to why he rammed the car. According to what I'm reading he was in his truck on the way to 7-11. He saw guys in ski masks in a Taurus speeding and that is why he rammed them? Maybe I'm missing something but based on that I think he should have more info before he rammed the car. Was he tipped off somehow?

The guys were leaving a jewelry store in the middle of the day in SoFla, the state where it's a 2nd degree misdemeanor to wear a mask on a public way. Gavin de Becker could probably describe the split second realization better than I can.

 

[TWtommers]

The guys were leaving a jewelry store in the middle of the day in SoFla, the state where it's a 2nd degree misdemeanor to wear a mask on a public way. Gavin de Becker could probably describe the split second realization better than I can.

Didn't know that tidbit. It still doesn't fill all the gaps in my mind but not to the point where I question him. In the end he ID'd them correctly. The only thing I flat out question is his minimal choice of hardware. I'm guessing he's questioning that too right about now

 

[Airman1030]

1. Bring a gun. Preferably, bring at least two guns. Bring all of your friends who have guns.

 

[rudiewhitebwoy]

Mr. Thalheimer said that he engaged the first suspect before he was fired upon and then returned fire at a second vehicle, a Suburban, that was parked across the street. When he went outside to show the interviewer the logistics of the event he pointed in the street and then across the street to where he had fired. He was unsure if he had hit his target's. Anyone notice the Mexican Restaurant directly across the street from where he indicated that he had fired. This would always be my biggest concern in this type of scenario. What if he hit a person or persons in that restaurant? He would be screwed.

 

[el duderino]

So what was his score?

 

[Bill Nance]

This would always be my biggest concern in this type of scenario. What if he hit a person or persons in that restaurant? He would be screwed.

I could give a rip if HE would be screwed. I'd just feel bad for the innocent person he shot trying to play cowboy.

 

[Martlet]

I have little problem with citizens who care enough about their community to engage dirt bags destroying it.

 

[TWtommers]

I have little problem with citizens who care enough about their community to engage dirt bags destroying it.

I don't really either as long as he didn't put others in danger. Haven't seen the scene of the shootout to see if it was trafficked by other innocents but that would have been a concern of mine since these guys weren't shooting until they got rammed by his car.

 

[chuckster]

Going out of your way to try to apprehend four armed fleeing people, in a car, (fleeing being the operative. They weren't at that point a threat to anyone) with only a j-frame snubby isn't exactly what I'd call good tactical judgment. A pocket pistol is either a holdout piece or useful for VERY short-range defensive fights.

This guy seems to have been all fired up to go play cop without the badge or the equipment. He's probably very lucky he didn't get shot.

It's certainly not morally wrong, but it wasn't smart.

This.

 

[Terminator03]

As Jose said, there's no such thing as "suitability" in FL. Even if you got convicted for a DUI or other crime that would make you lose the CWFL, they have to re-issue the license in 3 years, and you can still keep a loaded gun "securely encased" (i.e. glove compartment, center console) in the car without a license as long as you're not federally prohibited. Your gun ownership also has nothing to do with that license.




The guys were leaving a jewelry store in the middle of the day in SoFla, the state where it's a 2nd degree misdemeanor to wear a mask on a public way. Gavin de Becker could probably describe the split second realization better than I can.

That's really interesting - thanks for that info. I was not aware of that. I was sort of joking about the "suitability" thing in my post, as I know that is essentially just a MA term. Didn't know that in FL you could get it back after a DUI, though. I always thought that would make you federally prohibited - guess it must be just a state by state thing.

 

[GSG]

Didn't know that tidbit.

Yup.

876.11Public place defined.
—For the purpose of ss. 876.11-876.21 the term “public place” includes all walks, alleys, streets, boulevards, avenues, lanes, roads, highways, or other ways or thoroughfares dedicated to public use or owned or maintained by public authority; and all grounds and buildings owned, leased by, operated, or maintained by public authority.

876.12Wearing mask, hood, or other device on public way.
—No person or persons over 16 years of age shall, while wearing any mask, hood, or device whereby any portion of the face is so hidden, concealed, or covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter upon, or be or appear upon any lane, walk, alley, street, road, highway, or other public way in this state.

876.13Wearing mask, hood, or other device on public property.
—No person or persons shall in this state, while wearing any mask, hood, or device whereby any portion of the face is so hidden, concealed, or covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter upon, or be, or appear upon or within the public property of any municipality or county of the state.

876.14Wearing mask, hood, or other device on property of another.
—No person or persons over 16 years of age shall, while wearing a mask, hood, or device whereby any portion of the face is so hidden, concealed, or covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer, demand entrance or admission or enter or come upon or into the premises, enclosure, or house of any other person in any municipality or county of this state.

876.15Wearing mask, hood, or other device at demonstration or meeting.
—No person or persons over 16 years of age, shall, while wearing a mask, hood, or device whereby any portion of the face is so hidden, concealed, or covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer, hold any manner of meeting, make any demonstration upon the private property of another unless such person or persons shall have first obtained from the owner or occupier of the property his or her written permission to so do.

876.155Applicability; ss. 876.12-876.15.
—The provisions of ss. 876.12-876.15 apply only if the person was wearing the mask, hood, or other device:

(1)With the intent to deprive any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws or for the purpose of preventing the constituted authorities of this state or any subdivision thereof from, or hindering them in, giving or securing to all persons within this state the equal protection of the laws;

(2)With the intent, by force or threat of force, to injure, intimidate, or interfere with any person because of the person’s exercise of any right secured by federal, state, or local law or to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from exercising any right secured by federal, state, or local law;

(3)With the intent to intimidate, threaten, abuse, or harass any other person; or

(4)While she or he was engaged in conduct that could reasonably lead to the institution of a civil or criminal proceeding against her or him, with the intent of avoiding identification in such a proceeding.

876.16Sections 876.11-876.15; exemptions.
—The following persons are exempted from the provisions of ss. 876.11-876.15:

(1)Any person or persons wearing traditional holiday costumes;

(2)Any person or persons engaged in trades and employment where a mask is worn for the purpose of ensuring the physical safety of the wearer, or because of the nature of the occupation, trade, or profession;

(3)Any person or persons using masks in theatrical productions, including use in Gasparilla celebrations and masquerade balls;

(4)Persons wearing gas masks prescribed in emergency management drills and exercises.

876.21Sections 876.11-876.20; penalty.
—Any person or persons violating ss. 876.11-876.20, except as provided in s. 876.18, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

As you can see it's really only a tack-on charge, but they were masked on his private property without permission. Although it would be legal if they were under 15, which is hard to tell when they're wearing a mask.

Didn't know that in FL you could get it back after a DUI, though. I always thought that would make you federally prohibited - guess it must be just a state by state thing.

It depends on the penalty. Unlike Massachusetts, Florida doesn't have misdemeanors with a penalty of more than two years. First offense simple DUI is not a federal DQ, but if there's more to the case (a repeat offense, for instance) it eventually will become a felony.

That's why if someone has any kind of criminal record they should look at it closely with a lawyer before owning guns, to make sure that they aren't an accidental felon.

 

[DickWanner]

Mr. Thalheimer said that he engaged the first suspect before he was fired upon and then returned fire at a second vehicle, a Suburban, that was parked across the street. When he went outside to show the interviewer the logistics of the event he pointed in the street and then across the street to where he had fired. He was unsure if he had hit his target's. Anyone notice the Mexican Restaurant directly across the street from where he indicated that he had fired. This would always be my biggest concern in this type of scenario. What if he hit a person or persons in that restaurant? He would be screwed.

He was being shot at, what was he supposed to do?! When someone shoots at you, you shoot back!