26 August, 2019. At about 4:10 p.m., a suspect wearing a hoodie enters a MetroPCS cell phone store in Philadelphia, PA. The store and employees have been the victim of several robberies. On the alert, the employee watches the suspect intently as he enters the store, carrying a handgun in his left hand. The suspect throws a bag to the employee, and tells him to fill it with cell phones. The employee sees their chance.
The employee makes the decision to draw and engage the robber. They are bringing their sights on target, and the robber is realizing his peril, when the video is stopped by CBS3.
Link to video on Youtube
As seen in the video, it only takes a second of inattention from the robber for a defender to take decisive action. The robber telegraphed his intentions by wearing a hoodie on a 75 degree day in late August. He comes in with a handgun in his left hand, and a bag in his right hand. The employee is watching him intently, with his left hand near his holstered handgun.
The employee immediately understood what was happening, and the deadly threat they faced. They did not spend time in denial of what was happening. They processed and accepted what was going on very quickly and formulated a plan of action. Given the circumstances, it is highly likely the employee had considered various scenarios, had decided on various "what if" course of action long before this robbery attempt occurred. Presented with the reality, they only needed to pick a response and implement it.
The draw and presentation take less than two seconds in the video.
Armed robbers have many factors working against them in the United States.
They have to be worried about video capture. It is becoming harder and harder to commit crimes without being identified. That is why the hoodie was up, in spite of the weather and the potential tip-off.
They want compliance, not murder, because murder is very likely to be vigorously investigated, while a common store robbery receives much less scrutiny.
They have to present a credible threat to gain compliance, but a credible threat justifies using deadly force against them. If they are wounded, they leave a trail of DNA evidence behind.
In the past year, this particular store had been robbed two other times. The store employees knew they were at risk.
From the store employee's gun handling, it appears they had training. A witness reported about ten shots were fired. We do not know how many shots each participant fired.
This is a reasonable example of action beating reaction. The employee decided to take action against the deadly threat. He was likely taking up the slack on the trigger by the time the robber starts to react. It is too late for the robber to avoid being shot.
The employee was not wounded. The robber was killed.
Was the robber under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or some combination? We do not know. A 1994 study showed 65% of robbery suspects tested positive for drug use in 24 selected cities.
Being under the influence could explain the nonchalant attitude that lead to his fatal inattention.
People who want the population disarmed make the claim that defense of self with a firearm never happens. They construct fictional scenarios to explain why the wisdom of 400 years of human history is wrong.
In the real world, preying upon potentially armed humans is extremely dangerous, as illustrated in this video. In a society where the rule of law is generally followed, the rules and the reality are strongly biased toward the defender, against the aggressor.
It is one of the major reasons crime rates fall so rapidly where the rule of law is respected. In those areas, violent crime does not pay.
It is always possible to create fictional scenarios where self-defense does not work. Those who have chosen to be unarmed want to create reasons to justify their decision. They would be better served by realizing legally armed citizens add to their safety by making society dangerous for human predators.
Being human, they desperately want to deny that reality. They want to cloak themselves in the glow of a false moral superiority.
Niccolo Machiavelli may have been wrong about some things. He is considered the founder of modern political statecraft, because of his book "The Prince", written about 1537. He is correct about the disparity between armed and unarmed men. From The Prince:
There is no comparison whatever between an armed and disarmed man; it is not reasonable to suppose that one who is armed will obey willingly one who is unarmed; or that any unarmed man will remain safe while his servants are armed.Our armed servants (the police) respect armed citizens. They are their natural allies.
©2019 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
Posts
2 comments:
Dean: you posted the Texas police shooting of two people in their own hone being murdered by no knock warrant. I have yet to meet a cop that will not shoot a legally carrying civilian. I personally know of at least six people killed by trigger happy police. I have personally been criminally intimidated by police, twice. One stated "I could kill you and no one would care". I used to have a business partner that was a local cop. Our business relationship lasted less than two months. I was not into corruption. He was the definition of corruption. I know several great cops but they are few and far between. They don't want us as allies.
What Happens if the gun grabbers get an assault weapons ban passed? with the correct wording used in such a bill they could claim any weapon used is an assault weapon. Now if you get into a car accident you could be convicted of an assault weapons violation and there goes your guns.
Post a Comment