- Joined
- Jun 14, 2010
- Messages
- 1,232
- Likes
- 94
Rutland is weird, reminded me of NY in a bad way, I guess it's to close to the border.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Store clerk pulls gun on robber - Rutland, VT
- Thread starter DW357
- Start date
Mark from MA
NES Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2008
- Messages
- 11,635
- Likes
- 11,844
I'd say the confrontation was escalated when the guy pulled the knife and assaulted the clerk with a deadly weapon.
It should have been de-escalated by the clerk putting an extra hole in the perps face.....the clerk was too nice IMHO.
The store can FOAD....any convience store clerk that doesn't carry really is crazy. Letting a methhead, tweaking, drug addict decide whether you live or die isn't very smart. Last time I checked they aren't known for making very good decisions.....
Im thinking this day and age there making it safer to be the robber then the clerk, at least give a clerk an option to protect him self if the give them what they want is not good enough
To each there own as to when they feel an escalation of force is needed, for some letting them get passed "give me all the cash in the drawer" without pulling is to late and giving you less a chance to get the jump on them if they decide to gut you for the fun of it
Then there are people who would want to paly it cool and see if they will just go away with the cash, and the robbers never know how close they were to having a built as there last meal,
But as i see it there thereatining your life for some smal change, what happens to them is not on you now,
after someone threatens your life for some cash, its not about the cash any more, its about what time in the holdup do you feel is the best time for you to defend yourself to ensure you walk out alive,
baced on the situation (the way the robbers act) your skills and or your beliefs, are all that you should be worried about, not what the robbers feelings are or what he might or might not do to you,
and you should not care what someone else did to some other ass hat who thought it would be ok to rob a store by threatening the life of the clerk
Hell ya!
Not screwing around, waiting for some perp to end it all if he get's the whim!
- Joined
- May 23, 2013
- Messages
- 4,784
- Likes
- 4,912
The clerk had the bigger stick and should have used it(lethal/non-lethal his choice), now this P.O.S. is just going to do the same elsewhere and possibly hurt someone in the process.
It is a gamble, but 99.9% of the time they use a "tool" just as a threat so you will comply and not tell them to F-off. I still would have pulled my gun, without a doubt.
If the store was smart they would keep him employed to prevent more robberies. After the would be robber sees this broadcast then finds out the store is a Gun free zone, he or other potential robbers will be back, but moonbat store owners are to stupid to realize that.
GlockJock
NES Member
Exactly. The clerk said in one of the news articles that his store has been robbed 8 or 9 times! You'd think after that many robberies, the store/company would reconsider having a no-gun policy. Unreal.
GlockJock
NES Member
Boston (Jamaica Plain), 2009, convenience store clerk/cashier working extra hours to save money for a better life for his family (his wife and 9 year old daughter).
A paroled murderer (PAROLED MURDERER), Edward Corliss enters the store and pulls a gun. Cashier gives the PAROLED MURDERER all of the cash in the drawer.
Corliss, the PAROLED MURDERER, takes a step back, stops, and shoots the clerk anyways, killing him instantly. Corliss, the PAROLED MURDERER, showed no remorse during the trial, often grinning and once visibly laughing when listening to testimony about the hard-working clerk's struggle to better his family's life.
"Just give him the cash", like this clerk did?
Well, I'm sorry Mr. PAROLED MURDERER.
Here, instead, are three hollow point rounds, center mass and "whoops"! ...my fourth shot went slightly higher...
("Most robbers are looking for quick cash and not a victim")
?????? Really??
That's great.
YOU take YOUR chances with the odds and percentages.
I'll take the surer bet - my Glock 26.
Had to bump this story as I just came across this NRA news video showing all the coverage this got. Great video and glad he got a job with a store that believes in protecting yourself.
[video=youtube_share;rwgP-uII39M]http://youtu.be/rwgP-uII39M[/video]
[video=youtube_share;rwgP-uII39M]http://youtu.be/rwgP-uII39M[/video]
Employer policy prohibiting firearm possession protects the employer from litigation arising from the use of said firearm. Anyone who thinks the prohibition is for employee safety is in my opinion a moron. The argument for just giving them what they want and they will leave assumes that in each encounter all the criminal wants is the cash. What if you're female and in addition to the cash the criminal wants to relieve you of your sexual security? What if the criminal doesn't want you to be around to identify him or her? I wish this guy hadn't quit his job. It would have been much better to force the hand of the employer to dismiss him or make some change regarding the policy. I know it's to much to ask for but it would be great if the locals stopped going there and they had to close up shop. Like in many cases there is one positive in this situation. It's one more situation where the point you can't rely on the police to protect you from harm is driven home.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,517
- Likes
- 33,531
It's for liability.
If an employer allows employees to carry on the job, it is responsible for their actions, and the lack of an annual training and qualification would be clear negligence. Remember, we're not just talking about suits by the criminals, but bystanders as well. It would also be trivial for plaintiff's counsel to bring in numerous so-called experts in the field of HR to testify that the "prevailing standard" and "most common practice" is to prohibit armed employees. Add to that a few police who will testify they teach compliance for commoners, and the only question becomes "how much will the plaintiff get".
Compare that to the cost of hiring and training a new minimum wage employee.
When I was growing up in Rochester, NY there was a gas station robbery in which two attendants had their eyeballs gouged out. It worked - the criminals were never caught. But, both attendants can feel good about complying with the no guns policy. (Rochester was at the time, and I believe still is, a place where unrestricted carry permits can be had, but with a 4 month or so wait).
Last edited:
falcon123
NES Member
The reality is that some are not and I don't want to be the one that guesses wrong. Always assume that the criminal is going to kill you. Don't try to be a mind reader. It could cost you your life. Cops carry a gun for their own protection. Why can't the citizens? Some companies are more concerned with their liability than the employee's safety.
The problem here is liability. I would argue that if an innocent bystander is hurt in a firefight, the perp is at fault since he initiated the fight.
As far as response to lethal threat goes, if someone sticks a knife in my face I'm not going to wait for them to demand anything, I'm going to take action. Anyone here who thinks they have time to decide if someone intends to hurt them or just wants their money is hesitant, and should re-evaluate their carrying of firearms. Your self doubt and hesitation will get you killed.
As far as response to lethal threat goes, if someone sticks a knife in my face I'm not going to wait for them to demand anything, I'm going to take action. Anyone here who thinks they have time to decide if someone intends to hurt them or just wants their money is hesitant, and should re-evaluate their carrying of firearms. Your self doubt and hesitation will get you killed.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,517
- Likes
- 33,531
Yes, but store is the defendant with funds to pay a judgement.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,517
- Likes
- 33,531
The problem with this is that compliance turns over the decision regarding your entire future to the criminal.
And a less important detail .... if you just "give them what they want", guess who the only suspect they have is?
Speaking of store owners doing good things with guns, did anyone see the Fox25 News Friday morning? Story of a Manchester NH, store owner robbed by knife wielding idiot? (A regular customer, no less, so much for education in this country, huh?).
The store owner grabbed the thugs knife hand and held him across the counter until the cops came with a gun stuck in his ear, I SWEAR the original footage showed a gun in the store owners hand, I SAW the guns profile on the stores security camera footage but, when reviewing Fox's footage from their website, there was NO firearm. The footage stopped before the handgun came into view, unlike the initial airing.
Is it just me?
The store owner grabbed the thugs knife hand and held him across the counter until the cops came with a gun stuck in his ear, I SWEAR the original footage showed a gun in the store owners hand, I SAW the guns profile on the stores security camera footage but, when reviewing Fox's footage from their website, there was NO firearm. The footage stopped before the handgun came into view, unlike the initial airing.
Is it just me?
Last edited:
I think the best part about this is that Mac's gets a lot of free local advertising that says, "We fire armed employees! Stop on in and rob us another 8 or 9 times! Free newports and baking soda for the next five armed robbers." Rutland convenience gets a lot of free local advertising that says, "We hire employees who carry and as you can see on the 6 o'clock news, he's a decent guy. Makes you wonder if he's the only employee who's armed, doesn't it? Rob at your own risk. Also, we don't shit on our combat veterans like Mac's does."
Similar threads
