Police: Bystander Shoots Robber In Mall Parking Lot Two Suspects Remain At Large

ORLANDO, Fla. - Police continue to search for two men who tried to grab a woman’s purse as she walked toward the Fashion Square Mall on Tuesday. A third man was shot and arrested, apparently by a bystander who saw the robbery, police said Wednesday. Willie Keys-Fairclough, 29, who is hospitalized with minor injuries, was arrested in connection with the incident. snip

“She felt people come up to her, maybe one, maybe two,” Sgt. Barb Jones of the Orlando Police Department said. “They tried to grab her purse...She resisted. She started yelling, that's when everything started unfolding. snip

“You had a citizen engage the suspects,” Jones said Wednesday. “There were some rounds fired." The suspects ran across the street, and police said they found one man hiding behind a dumpster. The man had been shot in the leg but didn't know it. snip

Link:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28380721/


Isn't this the kind of situation that is supposed to result in massive crossfire deaths with innocent bystanders being shot by the dozens?

David

If one ended up in the assailants leg, were did the other rounds go?

Cats are always trying to slant the news. It is common knowledge.

So many openings for a little Get Fuzzy today.

A purse-snatch escalates into gunfire.

I'd like to know more. At exactly what point did the gun get fired? Did the robbers really look at a guy pointing a gun at them and laugh, and keep yanking at the purse?

Ah, I see what got left out. The robbers had their own guns.

Huh. Imagine. If nobody had had any guns, nobody would have got shot, and someone would have lost a purse.

And imagine, even, if the robbers had had guns, and the woman let go of her purse, and the robbers got away with it, and nobody else had a gun. Nobody would have got shot.

I lost a purse about a month ago. I never take a purse when I go out, but I was going to the bank and needed to carry stuff, and I wasn't driving (if I am, I leave the purse in the car if I happen to have it with me). I also never carry money in my purse, but there I was at the bank, with my purse on my lap, and the account manager handed me a wad of cash, and we were talking about our mothers with cancer, and I shoved it in my purse. So there I was in the grocery store with a purse with money in it, and I put it in my shopping cart and stepped around an aisle for a minute and bingo, purse gone. I'm out $350 and a digital camera, and my grandmother's compact, and some personal papers, and my ID, and assorted junk worth maybe $50.

And I got over it. And nobody got shot. If I'd seen the person taking my purse, I would have raised the hue and cry and given chase and tackled him/her if possible/necessary. And if I were struggling over the purse with the purse thief, and there were people around, I'd expect them to tackle the purse thief. But I'll tell ya, if somebody had pulled out a gun and shot at him/her, I'd be demanding that charges be laid against that person.

It's just an alternate universe I live in, isn't it? Largely because the chance of a purse thief having a firearm in my universe is just about minus 24 out of 3. I wonder how/why that could be ...

was a better shot 3BG's would be accounted for and off the street.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

He did a great job, at least one of the robbers will be brought to justice.

He could have just cowered away, but instead he stood up and sent a message to the bad guys.

This is why I love Florida, if you come into the store in my town to rob someone, you will be faced with armed citizens.

Every story like this makes me happy that I moved here.

I guess it wasn't a good day to be a robber/bad guy.

I would wait for more details before passing such judgment. It's possible you are correct, but it's also possible the 'good samaritan' broke one or more laws in the process.

Regardless of whether they stopped an armed robbery or not? The fact is he confronted 3 men at least one of whom was armed to protect someone he didn't know. I'd say that makes him as much a hero as most of the ones we read about. If a man entered a burning building to save someone he didn't know, would his actions be less heroic if he had an outstanding warrant?

David

I'd certainly hope so, since you've told us that the shooter would most assuredly be carrying that weapon illegally.

David

had a valid concealed carry permit. Truth is, neither of you know. So stop with the bullshit sarcasm till you can cite the facts. Agreed?

What sarcasm are you talking about? The poster to which I was responding is from Canada and has assured us here on many occasions that concealed carry doesn't happen there legally except in extremely rare circumstances. So until you know what you are talking about I will have to disagree with you.

David

Where I'm at, it is wholly illegal to carry concealed weapons -- that's what Davey was referring to. I omitted that consideration. My intended meaning related to the use of the firearm, rather than the possession of it.

always told women to carry their money and important papers in a wallet or money belt.

He also mentioned to place the strap of the purse across their neck rather than hang it on one shoulder as most women do. (Less chance of someone grabbing your purse as it won't just slide off.)

As far as chasing a purse grabber, his recommendation was to just let the guy run. If you don't have anything really valuable in the purse it's not important. The guy ends up with a cell phone or camera and some cosmetics. No big deal.

Using a firearm to stop a purse grabber is be a bad idea, as the prep is not threatening you in any manner as he runs away.

I doubt if many women who attended his classes followed his advise. My daughter doesn't, she doesn't like belts.

once had a Spy v. Spy where the black spy stole the white spy's brief case. White spy had a long string attached to the case and when it finally got pulled tight, it pulled the pin on a grenade. Hmm... Nah, too many bystanders could catch it. Maybe a dye pack?

Of course your daughter is right. It's just "stuff" and not worth killing or dying over. I reserve use of a firearm for the gravest imaginable extreme. Other than my wife and kids, I can't think of a thing that isn't replaceable.

Right now I'm kind of in that pickle. Quite by accident I stepped into a workplace situation that until further notice puts me in a position to expect retaliation from a scum bag who's going to prison soon even though he doesn't know it yet. Man, I hate carrying my weapon everywhere. It's like some kind of albatross that constantly reminds me that for the time being, some dirt bag is dictating my activities.

Be alert and careful not to be too predictable in your daily activities.

"Imagine. If nobody had had any guns, nobody would have got shot, and someone would have lost a purse."


Why not save a step and imagine there are no robbers, then you wouldn't even have a lost purse.

"Imagine. If nobody had had any guns, nobody would have got shot, and someone would have lost a purse."


Why not save a step and imagine there are no robbers, then you wouldn't even have a lost purse.



Thanks Indy Lurker, That is such a superior point of view. I think I shall use it forthwith for all my wishful thinking projects. Why get bogged down in minutia when a simple thought can fix all things. :)

We saved a better step -- better in that we actually did it. The one where the robbers didn't have guns.

The very idea of being held up by somebody with a gun at a shopping mall ... sorry, too loony to visualize. I really think you people make these things up.

2006, population 31,612,897

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/080220/dq080220b-eng.htm

Canadian police services reported just over 8,100 victims of violent gun crime, ranging from assault to robbery and homicide, accounting for 2.4% of all victims of violence. Handguns made up nearly two-thirds of all firearms used.

... In 2006, 1,287 young people were accused of a violent offence in which a gun was used. They accounted for 2.8% of all youth accused of violence; in contrast, 1.8% of adults accused of a violent offence had used a firearm.

... About three-quarters of the total number of violent victimizations involving guns in 2006 were robbery and assault. Although the incidence of attempted murder and homicide was much lower, about one-third of these offences were committed with a firearm.

... Police reported nearly 4,000 robberies and almost 2,400 assaults that were committed with a firearm. However, these types of offences were much more likely to be committed by physical force than with a firearm or any other type of weapon.

Robberies with firearms: under 4,000 in population of nearly 32 million.

Five years earlier (and the rate of firearm use in robberies has declined in Canada since):

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/011218/dq011218b-eng.htm

The American rate of reported robbery was 65% higher than in Canada in 2000, and the difference was much more pronounced with respect to robberies committed with a firearm. In 2000, firearms were involved in 41% of robberies south of the border, compared with only 16% in Canada. Since 1991, police-reported robbery rates have been declining in both countries. During this period, rates fell 47% in the United States-almost twice the 26% decline in Canada.

I'm trying to find the actual stats, but even without them I can assure you that the use of firearms is far more prevalent in robberies at businesses than of individuals out in public.

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&cr=countryCA&safe=off&q=+site:www.statcan.ca+statcan+robbery+firearm

If you look at the results list, you'll see a lot of stuff like "decreased steadily", "declining", "continued to decline", "at its lowest point". And it all dates from round about when those gun control laws were being enacted ...

There is no doubt that you enjoy lots of safety thanks to your firearm laws.

There is also no doubt that you do not enjoy the same ability to resist tyranny and oppression through force of arms as we do.

As ever, it is a question between essential liberty and a little temporary safety.

There is no doubt that you enjoy lots of safety thanks to your firearm laws.

Well ta. Nice of you to say so.


There is also no doubt that you do not enjoy the same ability to resist tyranny and oppression through force of arms as we do.

We probably don't have the same ability to repel green four-eyed monsters from outer space, either.

And I assure you, we lie awake at night worrying about this, and hope that if the monsters should land in Ottawa, you will bring your popguns to our rescue.


As ever, it is a question between essential liberty and a little temporary safety.

In this case, the question being essential safety vs. disingenuous noisemaking, of course.

We probably don't have the same ability to repel green four-eyed monsters from outer space, either.

But no one has this capability, so unlike the ability to resist tyranny and oppression through force of arms, there is nothing you can do about that particular problem.

And I assure you, we lie awake at night worrying about this, and hope that if the monsters should land in Ottawa, you will bring your popguns to our rescue.

I have little doubt that should the monster of tyranny and oppression land in Ottawa, the people there will no doubt be fervently hoping we bring our popguns to the rescue.

The fact that you don't "lie awake at night worrying" about your freedom is a great indicator of how complacent you are about your freedom. Our founders were not. Nor am I, nor are 40+ million other Americans.

In this case, the question being essential safety vs. disingenuous noisemaking, of course.

Astonishingly, every argument that Iverglas has no counter for conveniently becomes "noise". In fact, Iverglas, every time you type "noise" I am going to read that as "logic I am unable to refute".

At the very least, statistics do not support your view of the universe.

"I would have raised the hue and cry and given chase and tackled him/her if possible/necessary. And if I were struggling over the purse with the purse thief, and there were people around, I'd expect them to tackle the purse thief. But I'll tell ya, if somebody had pulled out a gun and shot at him/her, I'd be demanding that charges be laid against that person."


http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm

45% of robbery victims were injured if they tried to attract attention.
51% of robbery victims were injured if they defended themselves or property without a weapon

in contrast:

8.5% of robbery victims were injured if they attack an offender with a gun.

your choice of actions would result in injury 5 times more often.

btw what could you charge a good Samaritan with for shooting at armed robbers?

It's called "Canada". Or, as I prefer to call it, "Soviet Canuckistan".

What did you think my point was?

Your numbers don't apply to me. But thanks for playing.

did nothing except make the suspects scatter wherein two got away. The guy didn't even know he'd been shot. I guess if you stretch it maybe the gun gave the guy enough "courage" to approach the suspects and maybe protected the shooter after he had approached. All in all though the gun played a small part in the incident, didn't do much good, and could have made the situation much worse.

It stopped an armed robbery in progress, it saved this woman the time and hassle of the aftermath of a robbery, it helped capture 1 of the assailants and it DIDN'T make the situation worse. Why don't we just stick to the facts?

David

that the gun did not not help capture anyone, the suspects scattered and one decided to hide, which got him caught. I didn't say the situation was made worse by the gun I said that it could've been made much worse...which is true. And how does a gun eliminate hassle? I'm sure reports were still filled out, etc. Basically your point is that a gun kept a women from having to get a new id/credit card? Ok, that's the upside...and if it had gone worse? I'd say the possible downside outweighs the possible upside by a shitload.

what if the thieves decided to take more than the purse? ( sexual assault ) what if they decided to beat the victim? before they left? what if she had been killed? or taken ? ( kidnapped or carjacked ) YES the shooter could have made things mutch worse.... he could have ignored the situation, it`s only a purse!!!! and if YOU saw something like this would YOU intervene?? what would YOU do?? this guy risked his life to help an innocent, could have been my wife/mother/daughter... I would be PROUD to shake his hand!!! WELL DONE!! IMO!

The mating call of the gun militant brigade.


what if the thieves decided to take more than the purse? ( sexual assault )

Yes, sexual assault in the middle of a shopping mall. Happens all the time.

But hey, spread that word. Ladies, rape can happen anywhere at any time. Don't go outside. Or at least, don't go outside without a gun ... and join us in our crusade to ensure that there is no patch of earth where guns are excluded ...

Or were you referring to the woman's father/uncle/brother/cousin / husband/partner / estranged husband/partner / boyfriend / date / friend / acquaintance?

Because, you know, that's the majority of incidents. Reported incidents. (If you don't think that sexual assault by a non-stranger is reported at a lower rate than sexual assault by a stranger, well, you need to catch up.)

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus/current/cv0643.pdf

Over two thirds, by those figures.

Okay now, you come back by telling me how women would/should pull guns on their fathers/husbands/dates to avert assaults.


Tiresome and ugly, all over again.

where a woman did in fact pull a gun on a domestic partner assaulting them and they solved the problem by shooting said assailant.

"Nothing wrong with shooting people as long as the right people get shot." I think that was a Clint Eastwood/Dirty Harry quote but it does make sense. Remember those jerks doing the assaulting are breaking the law and endangering innocent life. Perfect case of self defense.

Of course, we're talking about sexual assault here.

And we're talking about thousands of reported such cases a year.

And we're talking about human beings, who really just are not in the habit of pulling firearms on their nearest and dearest, unless they perceive their lives to be in danger, and not so much even then.

(Talking self-defence, of course. Men are unfortunately rather prone to pulling firearms on their nearest and dearest in other circumstances, sometimes dressing in Santa costumes for the occasion.)

dead after he started his rampage but before he could continue thus potentially saving innocent life.

How stupid of those people not to have packed their pistols when they set out to go to grandma's house for a Christmas Eve gathering.

Especially the 8-yr-old girl and the other girl he shot upon first entering ...

Seriously? You went there huh?

Quite the leap of 'logic' there.

I carry a gun not because I need one but in case I need one. I did in fact have one "in my pants" when I went to grandmas for christmas. Had my wife and son along. Nothing happened, the gun was not needed and that is the way I like it. No one cared at the several parties I attended as they did not know I had it. If I needed it because of an estranged wacko... then I and those around me would have been better off than simply being the targets of a wacko in a target rich enviroment.

Sometimes the simple fact is evil must be confronted. When confronting evil it helps to have tools available that improve your chances to defeat said evil. Many people prefer not to carry those tools for a variety of reasons. That is fine by me. They must live (or possibly die) with their choices.

I will be happy to stipulate that the chances are minimal that a firearm is necessary for personal safety in most any day to day activity. I will also mention that averages are based on both extremes of the circumstances and for SOME people the odds end up being very bad.

I prefer to have the pistol in my pants in case I need it. Had "I" been at "THAT" unlucky party then quite possibly the end result would have been much more in favor of the innocent.

Hey, let's keep the dancing in the blood of innocent dead people to a dull roar huh?

That incident has nothing to do with this topic. It's highly anecdotal, an unusual, exotic incident, and most of your claims are unfounded bravado. I carry too, and have firearms accessible in my home, but that is not a guarantee I would win a gunfight if caught completely flat footed by a family member in a santa suit. For all you know, some of the people there may have been armed, but not also gunfighters. Having a firearm is good and all, but it's not necessarily going to save you, with 100% certainty every time.

You could have made your point just fine with the generally accepted stats on self defense with a weapon, without being a dick about a family that got wiped out by a homicidal maniac. They were not denied firearms by anyone. Their mode of self defense is their own business. Smearing their blood on this forum doesn't help your argument.

understand my post.

Lets refresh shall we...

I stated: Damn shame nobody shot that santa clause impersonator dead after he started his rampage but before he could continue thus potentially saving innocent life.

A simple statement wishing the perpertrator had been stopped before he could continue his rampage.

You replied: Wow dude. Seriously? You went there huh? Quite the leap of 'logic' there.

I responded with a logical comment: Why a leap of logic?
I carry a gun not because I need one but in case I need one. I did in fact have one "in my pants" when I went to grandmas for christmas. Had my wife and son along. Nothing happened, the gun was not needed and that is the way I like it. No one cared at the several parties I attended as they did not know I had it. If I needed it because of an estranged wacko... then I and those around me would have been better off than simply being the targets of a wacko in a target rich enviroment.

Sometimes the simple fact is evil must be confronted. When confronting evil it helps to have tools available that improve your chances to defeat said evil. Many people prefer not to carry those tools for a variety of reasons. That is fine by me. They must live (or possibly die) with their choices.

I will be happy to stipulate that the chances are minimal that a firearm is necessary for personal safety in most any day to day activity. I will also mention that averages are based on both extremes of the circumstances and for SOME people the odds end up being very bad.

I prefer to have the pistol in my pants in case I need it. Had "I" been at "THAT" unlucky party then quite possibly the end result would have been much more in favor of the innocent.

A simple comment with NO statements of certainty. I simply noted that the "possible" outcome could have been different.

You then go off about statements I did not say:Wow. Hey, let's keep the dancing in the blood of innocent dead people to a dull roar huh? That incident has nothing to do with this topic. It's highly anecdotal, an unusual, exotic incident, and most of your claims are unfounded bravado. I carry too, and have firearms accessible in my home, but that is not a guarantee I would win a gunfight if caught completely flat footed by a family member in a santa suit. For all you know, some of the people there may have been armed, but not also gunfighters. Having a firearm is good and all, but it's not necessarily going to save you, with 100% certainty every time.

You could have made your point just fine with the generally accepted stats on self defense with a weapon, without being a dick about a family that got wiped out by a homicidal maniac. They were not denied firearms by anyone. Their mode of self defense is their own business. Smearing their blood on this forum doesn't help your argument.

And to add insult to injury you made serious mistakes in your statements.

Lets look; That incident has nothing to do with this topic.

Fisrt off I did not raise the original reference to the Santa Killer. Even so I responded because the original topic referred to a armed citizen using his firearm to protect someone from an attack that might have caused serious injury or death. The Santa incident was also about an armed criminal visiting death and destruction to innocent people and HAD he been stopped by an armed bystander several innocent lives might have been saved. Seems rather easy to draw a nexus there.

Lets go on:It's highly anecdotal, an unusual, exotic incident, and most of your claims are unfounded bravado.

I claimed nothing but the truth as far as my personal experience is concerned. I do carry a pistol and even at family gatherings. That is not bravado. In addition it has no bearing on the unusual or exotic nature of the Santa incident. Other unusual and exotic incidents have been stopped or slowed down by armed citizens on the scene. My statement simply pointed out a similar possibility.

I carry too, and have firearms accessible in my home, but that is not a guarantee I would win a gunfight if caught completely flat footed by a family member in a santa suit.

I never said squat about guaranteed anything. What I said was a firearm can be a useful tool to "help" control those unusual and exotic incidents. You are assuming to much and must not have read my post with comprehension.

For all you know, some of the people there may have been armed, but not also gunfighters. Having a firearm is good and all, but it's not necessarily going to save you, with 100% certainty every time.

You are quite right and at NO POINT did I say different. Reread the post. Look for those words that show possibilities NOT guarantees.

You could have made your point just fine with the generally accepted stats on self defense with a weapon, without being a dick about a family that got wiped out by a homicidal maniac.

I simply stated a possible result that would be an accurate assessment of a probable outcome of the situation as presented. In police work we call that "incident analysis" It is a technique to ascertain what people did, might do or could do to prevent or at least limit those unusual and exotic incidents.

They were not denied firearms by anyone. Their mode of self defense is their own business. Smearing their blood on this forum doesn't help your argument.

I never said they were denied firearms nor did I argue with their mode of defense. Jumping out of a window to avoid being shot or burned to death is an excellent method in many circumstances. A quite viable option even if armed. My point however is the asshole that did the dirty deed would have been better off shot and stopped by someone at the party rather than allowed to continue his homicidal madness. Had I been at said party then I believe that "IF" I was not killed or incapacitated in the initial volly and "IF" I could ascertain the perpetrator and his location, THEN "I" would have tried to engage the asshole and shoot him to stop him from continuing. I would do this because "I" go about my daily business armed with a handgun even when at family christmas parties.

My statements were simply my opinion of a possible outcome based on my experience and training and in response to a topic introduced by a different commentator.

I am begining to better understand that commentators disgust with people that fail to read the post before that start spouting pontifications.

iverglas...I owe you a beer.

Had "I" been at "THAT" unlucky party then quite possibly the end result would have been much more in favor of the innocent.

'quite possibly' is a tiny hedge in your favor, but not much. It's a huge dick move. Would you say this to the face of one of the survivors?

Seems you and I must simply disagree on this. I am sorry you have the feelings you do. I did not do nor intend it the way you took it. Have a happy new year and may it bring you peace and prosperity.

Per the forum rules I'll leave it at that.

Just looking for clarification.

I wish they would have tried to do that to me. I wish I was there. Statements similar to that. I've made similar statements about medical emergencies. I think it may be a symptom of getting called to late one to many times.

David

were wishing they had a gun to fight back as the homicidal Santa was dispensing death and destruction. I have heard that very sentiment at several shootings I have investigated.

A woman near where my folks live was killed when someone snatched her purse, she fell hit her head and died. How do we know that one of the armed assailants wouldn't of shot her if the citizen hadn't intervened? It took me months and countless hours straightening out things after someone broke in my truck. So the upside to me is an armed robbery was stopped, one of the assailants was captured and no one was seriously injured. I do find it interesting that you didn't factor the possible death of the victim in on your possible downside.

David

The "gun did not help capture anyone": Do you think that the police response would have been the same if no shots were fired? Usually, police are notified when "shots are fired" and respond accordingly. Assuming a more robust police response did in fact occur, the cops were no doubt aided by one of the crims hiding behind the dumpster, perhaps because the crim, for some odd reason, couldn't run as fast as the others.

You mention downsides, but neglect the possible downsides to the victim: physical injury/death. You also fail to consider the downside of these violent -- yes, violent -- crims being on the loose to strike again. But that can be ameliorated by the fact one of the hoodlums is now grabbing vertical bars.

Do not reward/enable/romance the crim by passive responses when more forceful options are available. These guys are arrogant and only express contempt for (and be emboldened by) passivity.

Talk about yer straining ...

Yep, if you want to get police attention, shoot at somebody.

Works for me.

currently living in Orlando and a recurring visitor to that very mall; I can assure you that the OPD will respond much faster and with more cops to a "armed robbery, shots fired" call than to a "armed robbery" call.

I spoke with one of the officers in on the initial response. The comment he made was on the order of "I wish they could have shot better, we might have had all three."

There was another citizen that used a gun that day in Metro Orlando to interrupt a robbery. That one did not get as much play in the media.

I think my stars.

I think, "My stars!"?

That too.

But I thank my stars.

that had you been thanking instead of thinking in that previous post my response would have been much different.

My apologies. :)

It looked rather like random monkey scribbles as it stood.

for a little Get Fuzzy. The slightest opening ...

were in reply to my smartass remarks. :D

Damn this medium...Damn it all.

The monkey scribbles I was referring to were my initial remark, which I was too late to edit:

I think my stars.

I might as well have said Think my, stars; I?

The other monkey scribbles, ^^^^, were an effort to say "it takes one to know one".

Now, if you had said "random monkey scribbles" instead of "waste of bandwidth", I might have checked to see what you were talking about ...


It must be time for some more Get Fuzzy. Can't find a one with guns, but here's one with a Democrat.



(Okay, Get Fuzzy, while not Canadian, expresses a very Canadian sense of humour. That one's called "self-deprecating" when offered by a Democrat or vague Democratish sympathizer.)

You can't read half the posts in this thread. Or so you claim.

If you wish to comment on posts you can't read ... ... ...

... well, I can't even think of how to finish that sentence.

So, defense of a fellow human being robbed at gunpoint by shooting at the armed robbers is bad?

Someone's daughter is alive and well because of a good samaritan, but you and others here have this overwhelming need to find fault in how her welfare was preserved. I have no clue as to how you come up with logic like that.

Please, tell me, if she were your duaghter would you still itch to be first in line to chastise the good samaritan?

Armed criminals attack an unarmed victim.

A good Samaritan responds.

The good Samaritan and the victim escape unharmed, one of the armed criminals is wounded, but not killed.

There we have it. Nothing to see here, folks. jody has said it all. Move along now.

less unreasonable than some of the others. But still, a convienient assumption the article is 100% accurate, and the reporter had a full, clear understanding of all events that transpired. (I think it's pretty clear we DON'T have that just yet)

Do you see anything at all questionable about his summation?

David

And this

An armed citizen stopped an armed robbery.

would be the part that was jody's summation.

I love having to explain every.single.word.

too bad they didn't find the other two cowards there.