Surveillance Video: Concealed Carry Stops Milwaukee Robbery

[RHenriksen]

The stories said he didn't have one in the chamber and had to rack the slide.

Oh man. I bet he's going to rethink that one now or at least spend some more time training on racking the slide as he draws or something.

Yes, he's quoted in the article as having learned from that experience.

[TrueFlog]

So, if you CC in to, let's say AMC and you stop a threat, you'll take the ride but will you be a hero or a villan?

Regarding AMC specifically, I've yet to see a 30.06 sign posted at one. Sorry, but the 8.5x11 sheets of paper they tape to their glass doors in obscure locations aren't compliant.

I didn't know if they were legit or not as I haven't been to one in years so bad example. Thanks for letting me know and I just looked on texas3006 as well. I frequent Cinemark that doesn't post anything.

The Cinemark locations in Plano used to not be posted at all. Now they're posted, but not compliant/enforceable. After Aurora, they put up new signs that say "For you safety & enjoyment, the following items are prohibited: outisde food and drink, tobacco and alchohol, firearms and weapons" or something similar.

[Keith B]

The Cinemark locations in Plano used to not be posted at all. Now they're posted, but not compliant/enforceable. After Aurora, they put up new signs that say "For you safety & enjoyment, the following items are prohibited: outisde food and drink, tobacco and alchohol, firearms and weapons" or something similar.

I was at the Cinemark Legacy a few weeks ago and specifically looked for any signage and there was none, compliant or not.

[VMI77]

I know what I would have done....not entered the store when I saw the anti-gun sign and not given them a penny of my money. But most certainly, I would not have provided any anti-self-defense nuts with free security.

[RottenApple]

The Cinemark locations in Plano used to not be posted at all. Now they're posted, but not compliant/enforceable. After Aurora, they put up new signs that say "For you safety & enjoyment, the following items are prohibited: outisde food and drink, tobacco and alchohol, firearms and weapons" or something similar.

I was at the Cinemark Legacy a few weeks ago and specifically looked for any signage and there was none, compliant or not.

If they post them the way AMC does, I'm not surprised. AMC likes to tape 8.5x11 sheets of paper with the 30.06 language (often in English only) on the top corner of one of their 10' tall glass doors. Even if you notice the paper, its next to impossible to read it. And even if you can read it, it's not compliant. My wife and I just ignore it and carry away.

[RoyGBiv]

The Cinemark locations in Plano used to not be posted at all. Now they're posted, but not compliant/enforceable. After Aurora, they put up new signs that say "For you safety & enjoyment, the following items are prohibited: outisde food and drink, tobacco and alchohol, firearms and weapons" or something similar.

I was at the Cinemark Legacy a few weeks ago and specifically looked for any signage and there was none, compliant or not.

The new Cinemark at Alliance Town Center has "No Firearms" very clearly posted on (all/several?) their front entrance doors. Definitely not 30.06.

[Rrash]

After Aurora, they put up new signs that say "For you safety & enjoyment, the following items are prohibited: outisde food and drink, tobacco and alchohol, firearms and weapons" or something similar.

Ignorance is bliss.

[VMI77]

After Aurora, they put up new signs that say "For you safety & enjoyment, the following items are prohibited: outisde food and drink, tobacco and alchohol, firearms and weapons" or something similar.

Ignorance is bliss.

Not ignorance, you're just assuming the sign is directed at most theater goers. It's the safety and enjoyment of the potential killers the sign is referring to.

[RX8er]

The Cinemark locations in Plano used to not be posted at all. Now they're posted, but not compliant/enforceable. After Aurora, they put up new signs that say "For you safety & enjoyment, the following items are prohibited: outisde food and drink, tobacco and alchohol, firearms and weapons" or something similar.

I was at the Cinemark Legacy a few weeks ago and specifically looked for any signage and there was none, compliant or not.

The new Cinemark at Alliance Town Center has "No Firearms" very clearly posted on (all/several?) their front entrance doors. Definitely not 30.06.

Yes, and on Sunday I walked right past it smiling with my two boys, them knowing. We all enjoyed Iron Man 3.

[race4beer]

So, if you CC in to, let's say AMC and you stop a threat, you'll take the ride but will you be a hero or a villan?

Regarding AMC specifically, I've yet to see a 30.06 sign posted at one. Sorry, but the 8.5x11 sheets of paper they tape to their glass doors in obscure locations aren't compliant.

I didn't know if they were legit or not as I haven't been to one in years so bad example. Thanks for letting me know and I just looked on texas3006 as well. I frequent Cinemark that doesn't post anything.

The Cinemark locations in Plano used to not be posted at all. Now they're posted, but not compliant/enforceable. After Aurora, they put up new signs that say "For you safety & enjoyment, the following items are prohibited: outisde food and drink, tobacco and alchohol, firearms and weapons" or something similar.

This is silly - after Aurora, I would have big signs posting CHL/Firearms WELCOME and offer discounts to CHL holders.

[BigGuy]

The Cinemark locations in Plano used to not be posted at all. Now they're posted, but not compliant/enforceable. After Aurora, they put up new signs that say "For you safety & enjoyment, the following items are prohibited: outisde food and drink, tobacco and alchohol, firearms and weapons" or something similar.

OK. I may not be the sharpest tack in the box, but I really fail to understand how not allowing "outside food or drink" (less expensive and better) will enhance my safety or enjoyment.

[JALLEN]

The Cinemark locations in Plano used to not be posted at all. Now they're posted, but not compliant/enforceable. After Aurora, they put up new signs that say "For you safety & enjoyment, the following items are prohibited: outisde food and drink, tobacco and alchohol, firearms and weapons" or something similar.

OK. I may not be the sharpest tack in the box, but I really fail to understand how not allowing "outside food or drink" (less expensive and better) will enhance my safety or enjoyment.

This way the theater owner can protect everyone against foul odors, bad food, extra large pizza boxes taking up several seats, coolers full of beer and who knows what all else, and not have to charge even more of an arm and a leg for admission since they can make a fortune off refreshment sales.

I make it easy on them. I never go to the movies.

[mr1337]

I know this is an old thread, but there's a new video out where the CCW holder is interviewed. Excellent interview, if you ask me.

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmLLle42XtU[/video]

Lesson learned: Carry chambered!

[The Annoyed Man]

[puts on asbestos underwear]
FWIW, I don't think this was a "self defense" shooting.

I agree that the situation was volatile, and I even agree that the guy did what he thought he had to do. I am not certain that I might not have done exactly the same thing in his shoes.

But it is also plain to me that:

1. the shooter had already retreated to a more or less safe distance where he was not personally directly or immediately threatened.
2. He was further away from the bad guy than pretty much anybody in the camera's view.
3. He found temporary concealment behind a rack of merchandise, so the bad guy wasn't focused on him.
4. The bad guy didn't shoot anybody, and his behavior looked to my like he just wanted the thing to be over so he could get the heck out of there.
5. The bad guy was already on his way out of the store, without having shot anybody, when the shooter engaged him.

It may not have seemed like it at the time, but I don't think that self defense entirely justifies this shooting. The bad guy was already hurrying away from the one person who had been most directly threatened by him—the cashier, who was unharmed—when the shooter engaged him. This was more of a "taking out the trash" kind of thing. Justifiable on that basis? Not for me to decide. But the shooter didn't stop a robbery from happening, he tried to stop the robber from getting away. Am I OK with what the shooter did? Yeah, I am. I just don't think I should be fooling myself about why I'm OK with it, or about what actually happened inside that store........because it looks to me like only way the outcome changed is that the thief got arrested later at a hospital. He still robbed the store. He still didn't harm anyone. And, he still got away with the money.......for a time. Take the shooter out of the picture, and the only difference in the outcome is that the robber gets to keep the money, and he doesn't show up later at the ER with a GSW.

Ergo, not a self defense shooting. "Batman" scenario? Could be, but not for me to decide. Might I have done the same thing? Possibly. But the shooter had to move forward, toward the threat to engage him. Perhaps he thought it was a "defense of others" situation, in which case it was justifiable. Perhaps he thought it was "defense of property", in which case things get blurrier. But "self defense"?

In my opinion, it was not.
[/leaves asbestos underwear on just in case]

[mr1337]

That's what I thought too, when I originally saw the story, prior to this interview.

However, during the interview, the CCW holder pointed out some key facts - as well as some pulled from the video:

a. The robber already had the money and was still threatening the store clerks with the gun
b. The robber was still verbally aggressive and threatening
c. Innocent customer finally moves out of the backstop, giving the CCW holder a clear shot
d. The CCW holder decided to engage, he pointed and pulled the trigger and just heard a click. At this point, the robber was still within range of the clerks and not yet fleeing.
e. The robber starts fleeing as the CCW holder racks a round into the chamber
f. At this point, the CCW holder is already engaged and is willing to continue engaging until the lethal threat has ceased. In this case, that means the robber is out of the building.

I don't feel that a this level of Monday-morning quarterbacking is fair to the CCW holder. Never having been involved in a situation like this (hopefully never will, knock on wood) I can understand that you could be a second or two behind while you're processing these things, looking for the right moment to strike. But once you engage, you need to keep engaging until the threat is gone. I think if the guy wanted to be a real "Batman" he would have chased him out of the store and shot the getaway vehicle. That would have been taking it too far.

I think if the CCW holder stopped engaging after his gun went click, the robber wouldn't have taken too kindly to that. And I feel at the point where the robber was drawn on, the CCW holder had justification to draw in defense of others.